Although the Democrats were able to reach parity with the Republicans in terms of both fundraising for and money spent on behalf of their presidential candidate, The Washington Post's team of Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi report that the GOP was significantly more resourceful than the Dems. In a front page article entitled "On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows", Edsall and Grimaldi write:

In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion.

But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush. That is the conclusion of an extensive examination of campaign fundraising and spending data provided by the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and interviews with officials of the two campaigns and the independent groups allied with them.

Although the effects of the disparity in quality of money spent are obvious in the campaign's results, it is also important to note that the Republicans' relative efficiency in spending their campaign funds allowed them to essentially spend more than the Democrats. The Democratic Party must wean itself off of expensive consultants who peddle the same tired ideas each cycle (read: Bob Shrum, etc.) in favor of their less expensive counterparts who can nonetheless get the job done. This is imperative to their success, but it is entirely possible.