Kamala Harris spent well over $1 billion in her abbreviated 107-day presidential campaign two years ago, a huge sum. But on Election Day, the sitting vice president found her image was underwater. According to exit polls, her favorables were at 46 percent and her unfavorables were at 52 percent, virtually the same as Donald Trump’s 46 percent to 53 percent.

She lost all seven competitive presidential states, though Democratic candidates won four out of the five Senate races in those same states. “Democrats do not have a money problem; it’s a strategy problem,” wrote the author of the Democratic National Committee’s autopsy report in an unofficial version of his own.

Big Democratic donors and the media were left wondering, “Where did all the money go?”

The better question for Democrats and Republicans going forward might be, “Is big money no longer the big determinant in major races, if it ever was?” Harris’ epic fail was seen by many as a one-off thanks to the Democrats’ nomination chaos. Instead, it seems to have been a precursor to what we have seen in a number of key primaries in the last few weeks.

From Michigan to Minnesota to Texas, we’ve seen establishment campaigns with overwhelming money advantages in advertising spending come up short. The first of these was in Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic Senate primary in a squeaker against Rep. Haley Stevens by roughly 1 percentage point.

When looking at what was spent on advertising for both sides, including the campaign and spending done on behalf of each candidate, there is a significant story. Advertising spending for or by El-Sayed amounted to $5.2 million, according to Kinetiq Political Insights data compiled by Axios. In contrast, for Stevens that number was $52 million.

Stevens outspent El-Sayed 10-1 in terms of advertising, the sort of margin that one would expect would produce a comfortable win, at least according to conventional political wisdom. Certainly, political news coverage tends to lean heavily on a campaign’s fundraising prowess and the size of its ad buys to influence its pronouncements on the viability and advantage of the candidate doing better in both. That was clearly not the case here.

So, was the Michigan Senate primary race an isolated situation? No. A week later, the Democratic establishment, backing Rep. Angie Craig in the Minnesota Senate primary, got another reality check when the progressive lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, beat Craig by 20 points — a blowout.

Once again, money wasn’t the deciding factor. In this race, the advertising spending by and for Flanagan was $3.3 million. In contrast, the spending by and for Craig was $13.8 million. Craig’s 4-1 money advantage couldn’t save her.

Next up to bat was Alexander Vindman, a central figure in Trump’s first impeachment who was expected to easily win the Democratic nomination for Senate in Florida and move on to the general. Few had been following the race, with far-left candidate Angie Nixon considered a long shot. Nixon spent only $60,000 on advertising, according to a New York Times review of AdImpact data, while Vindman spent $2.2 million. That is a staggering 37-1 margin to overcome. But Nixon not only won, she won by double digits (+12).

But the big-money bust wasn’t relegated to Democrats alone, as the Texas Republican Senate primary proved. In that race, advertising spending by and for winning candidate Attorney General Ken Paxton amounted to $8.2 million, as tracked by Kinetiq. Advertising spending by and for John Cornyn was a remarkable $58.8 million. Cornyn had a 7-1 margin, or in a dollar amount, a $50.6 million advantage. Yet much to everyone’s surprise, Paxton managed a 28-point victory margin in the runoff. Cornyn had run ahead of Paxton by 1 percent in the initial primary, but only got to 42 percent, forcing him into the runoff. Money couldn’t save him either.

In putting the numbers together for these four races, the advertising by and for the winning candidates was $16.8 million. The advertising spending by and for the losing candidates was $126.8 million. The losing candidates had a $110 million advantage, and three of the four lost by double digits, an unreal outcome.

Clearly what is thought to be a decisive element in winning campaigns, an advertising spending advantage, did not produce the winning outcomes that the political community has come to expect. To paraphrase the Democratic analyst, “These campaigns didn’t have a money problem, they had a strategy problem.” He is right. Campaigns need to understand that money is a resource, not an outcome. You can’t spend your way out of a bad strategy.

Which had more impact on Kamala Harris’ defeat — spending millions on celebrity events or her response to Sunny Hostin’s question asking whether there was anything she would have done differently than Joe Biden? Harris never understood that the electorate wanted the economy fixed, in this case seen as the “Biden economy,” and millions of dollars of ads bashing Trump wasn’t the answer. Once again, more than a billion dollars couldn’t save her from a losing strategy.

Given the media’s emphasis on fundraising, it’s certainly possible that the expectations they set for campaigns are based, at least in part, on a construct that may no longer be viable. The idea that a campaign could outspend an opponent by 10-1 and lose certainly disrupts the current media narrative that the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win.

The staggering size of the campaign war chests enjoyed by these losing Senate candidates should alert both parties and the media that this may not be “your father’s midterms” two months from now. Taken with the explosion of unproven and many flat-out wrong polls, it only added to the misread of this primary season.

What the electorate seems to be saying is that they want better content, and that content needs to be focused on their concerns. That means campaigns will have to present ideas and solutions that define value to voters. That would be a welcome change from the increasing ineffectiveness of outdated strategies.

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.