In a story linked by Drudge, Barron’s projects that “the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally” in the November election. How do they reach that conclusion?

We studied every single race — all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate — and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support.

But as my adviser told them, money is not always dispositive:

John Aldrich, a professor of political science at Duke University who writes extensively about elections, says that a candidate really doesn’t need the most money to win; he merely requires enough cash to get his message across. Aldrich believes Democrats will win this year with less money because they won’t have to spend so much to persuade voters to switch horses.

“The support for the president, the Congress and incumbents is relatively low by historical standards,” he says. In fact, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll says voter disgust with Congress is the lowest in the survey’s 17-year history.

It is true that candidates with the most money usually win. However, campaign donations are frequently a reflection of candidates’ favorable election prospects or incumbent status, not a cause of it. Campaign spending probably matters on the margin (see this literature review) but it seems to matter less than many people think. And as Barron’s acknowledges, financial advantages are even less meaningful in anti-incumbent elections, which this election may turn out to be.