[Program Note: I chose not to write about our new war today for two reasons. The first is it is still very early on -- too early for me to form any real conclusions. The second is that I don't feel like I would have anything to add to what has already been said up to this point. I will tackle the subject in a day or two, but for now I'm going to leave the war commentary to others.]

How much does money still matter in political campaigning anymore? That is an interesting question to ponder, here at the start of the midterm election season. It used to be almost a foregone conclusion -- the candidate who vastly outspent the other candidate(s) usually wound up winning. Because they had enough money to flood the airwaves with ads, they got their message out much more effectively and reaped a larger share of the vote as a direct result. But politics has undergone a shift over the past few decades, to the point where having the most money doesn't automatically equate to winning elections. At least, not as much as it used to.

Admittedly, this has always been true to a certain extent. If the electorate has a vastly different political outlook than a very well-financed candidate, it doesn't really matter how much money he or she spends, because few voters will be convinced. Remember Meg Whitman? In 2010, Whitman ran for governor of California as a Republican. She poured a ton of her own money into the race ($144 million -- "more than any other self-funded political candidate in U.S. history" up to that point, according to Wikipedia), but in the end Jerry Brown handily defeated her. That's just one example that springs to mind, but there are others, too. If a candidate is either woefully unqualified or has a jarring ideological mismatch with the voters themselves, then it doesn't matter how much money they throw at ads. But those were the exceptions -- the general rule has long been the candidate with the biggest war chest usually has the best chance of winning.

But nowadays television ads don't have the same impact as they used to. The media market has undergone radical changes in the past few decades, which has diluted the power of such political advertising. And at times, a true grassroots movement can overcome a vast disparity in campaign funds, if there are enough fervently committed people out there knocking on doors and delivering the candidate's message in other ways. Just ask Zohran Mamdani.

This is all a roundabout way of getting to the main subject, which is tomorrow's primary election in Texas. Senator John Cornyn is in a fight for his political life, which is a little strange since sitting U.S. senators usually easily skate to their party's nomination. As if that weren't enough excitement, there is a tight race on the Democratic side as well, to see who will take on the Republican nominee in November. And in both races, the candidate with a ton of money could very well lose tomorrow.

This race has already entered the record books as the most expensive Senate primary in history. Over $100 million has been spent so far. But it might not matter.

On the Republican side, Cornyn is trying to fend off a challenge from two other candidates, Ken Paxton and Wesley Hunt. Hunt is likely to trail both of the others, but he may just get enough votes to deny the other two the 50 percent simple majority of votes they need to become the nominee. This could lead to a head-to-head runoff election in a few months between Cornyn and Paxton. Cornyn has raised far more money than Paxton, but is currently trailing in the polls. On the Democratic side, James Talarico has outraised his opponent Jasmine Crockett by a wide margin as well:

Major Republican donors have poured cash into an effort to save Senator John Cornyn from an embarrassing defeat to Ken Paxton, the MAGA-wing state attorney general, who national G.O.P. leaders fear could jeopardize the party's hold on the seat. Mr. Cornyn and his allies have outspent Mr. Paxton and his supporters by roughly $69 million to $4 million on advertising.

And in the photo-finish Democratic primary contest, supporters of State Representative James Talarico have helped him heavily outspend Representative Jasmine Crockett and her allies by about $24.5 million to $5 million on ads.

The polling is close in both races, but because it is a primary it's all going to depend on who actually turns out to vote. Paxton seems to have a lead over Cornyn, but as mentioned he might fall short of the 50 percent he needs to become the nominee tomorrow night. On the Democratic side, the polls are all over the place. One recent poll showed Talarico with a five-point lead (52 to 47), but a different poll released today showed Crockett with a huge 22-point lead (56 to 34).

The outcome of both races will make for an interesting matchup, no matter who gets nominated. In one way, the Republican and Democratic races are similar, since they both feature a "firebrand" candidate running against one seen as more solid and serious. You can tell how frustrating this is for Cornyn, who warned at a rally: "We don't need any more performance artists. People who want to get on T.V. and say outrageous things. They want to be famous and then they want to raise money and call it a day. That's not my definition of public service." Primary challenges against a sitting senator rarely succeed, but this one might (much to Cornyn's obvious frustration).

There are four basic possibilities for the general election matchup:

Cornyn v. Talarico. This would be the "bland versus the bland" matchup. Talarico has been running a campaign designed to appeal to moderates in both parties, although his actual platform is pretty populist ("The real fight in this country is not left versus right, it's top versus bottom," and he also has a Biblical Jesus-v.-moneychangers slogan: "It's time to start flipping tables"). Talarico speaks often of his faith and how he subscribes to the politics of love, not hate (which is understandable, since he is a seminary student on leave from his studies). This might be acceptable enough for middle-of-the-road Texans to vote for him in November, or even some Republicans who aren't big fans of Cornyn.

Cornyn v. Crockett. Jasmine Crockett is the fireball on the Democratic side of the aisle, as anyone who has ever heard her speak already knows. She fights hard for what she believes in, and she is not afraid of using the strongest possible language against Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans. However, it is an open question as to whether a feisty Black woman would truly have a chance to be elected statewide in Texas. This is the matchup establishment Republicans are wishing for, because they think it would be the easiest race for them to win. And they might be right.

Paxton v. Talarico. This one flips the script, because it would be a Republican firebrand against a rather staid Democrat. Ken Paxton has a rabid MAGA following among the Republican base in Texas, and he revels in doing and saying outrageous things. He's also got a ton of both personal and political baggage, meaning there are Republican voters who are not big fans of him as well. They might not vote for a Democrat in November but they could very well just stay home and not vote. This is the matchup that the establishment Democrats are hoping for, because they think it is their best chance to turn this Texas Senate seat blue. If Talarico truly does have crossover support and if enough GOP voters are disgusted with Paxton, then the perennial dream of electing a Democrat to a statewide office might just come true.

Paxton v. Crockett. This would definitely be the most entertaining race, because you can bet your bottom dollar the sparks would fly in a big way. It might also be the hardest race to predict, since both candidates would have both fervent supporters as well as people overwhelmingly determined to vote against them. This is the race that none of the party insiders on either side wants to see happen (in part because it would be so unpredictable). There wouldn't be a whole lot of crossover appeal from either one of these candidates, that's about all you can say for certain.

The general election polling on the race is interesting, although there hasn't been a ton of it so far. It's closer than you might think, in all four basic matchups. In a Cornyn v. Talarico race, the two polls taken in January show Cornyn up by 1 and 3 points. Cornyn does better in a matchup with Crockett, but again not by all that much (he's up by 2 and 5 points in the two polls). The Democrats do a little better with Paxton on the ballot, but not by much. The two polls for Paxton v. Talarico show Paxton up 2 in one of them, and tied in the other. And, surprisingly the outcome was exactly the same with Paxton facing off against Crockett -- he's up 2 in one, and tied in the other.

All four would be close races, at least as things stand now. There are no huge, insurmountable leads for any of the candidates. The Republicans hold a very slight edge, but then again this is Texas we are talking about. Early turnout has been very high in the Democratic primary, while only slightly elevated on the Republican side. That's not a solid indicator of anything, since Election Day turnout has yet to happen, but it is interesting.

However, if the race does boil down to Paxton versus Crockett, the most interesting thing about it will be how both of them had to overcome an overwhelming monetary disparity with their opponents. On the Democratic side, if Crockett wins it will be an upset, since she will have been outspent 5-to-1. On the Republican side the difference is even starker, as if Paxton beats Cornyn he'll have overcome a whopping 17-to-1 imbalance in campaign funds.

Money talks, in politics. But it doesn't always have the final word.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant