Most people tend to think the more money a politician raises, the more likely he is to win his next election. Candidates across the country raise as much money as they can, and are poked and prodded by party committees to raise even more, and to do so even more quickly. The reasons are fairly obvious: Money pays for things like staff, ads, get-out-the-vote programs, and donuts -- all the things you need in order to win. And early money scares off potential opponents, while attracting yet more money. (That's the idea behind the name EMILY's List -- Early Money Is Like Yeast.)

But maybe all of that is wrong. Politico suggests that raising a lot of money might actually hurt Sen. Harry Reid:

Could big money haul hurt Reid?
By: Carol E. Lee
May 27, 2009 12:41 AM EST

LAS VEGAS - Sen. Harry Reid has made no secret of his plans to shore up a massive war chest to scare off challengers and aid his reelection bid.

But could Reid's boasting that he will raise $25 million to keep his seat actually hurt him?

Wow. That's just ... dumb. And what is this rather far-fetched idea that raising a lot of money might hurt Reid based upon? As Josh Orton notes at MyDD, it's based on nothing other than a Republican saying it could hurt Reid:

To be fair, the state Republican chair said it could hurt Reid! Ignore the fact that Republicans boast of raising nearly the same amount to mount a challenge. I know Republicans want to bluff that Reid's vulnerable - but I didn't expect the chutzpah of specifically using a metric of electoral viability as proof.

This Politico craziness follows a CNN report yesterday suggesting that Barack Obama might face a “backlash” as a result of his raising money for Reid. CNN offered no evidence to support the thesis, which seems far-fetched at best.

It seems some in the media are desperate to find signs of political trouble for the Democrats, even spinning successful fundraising as bad news.

Now, let's fire up the way-back machine and head back to 2006. That's when NBC's Matt Lauer suggested that President Bush's unpopularity was good news for the Republicans, because it meant they could run against Bush. No, really, he did:

LAUER: These approval numbers, Tim, are they in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans in these midterm elections? Because, basically, they can look and say, “Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger.”

Two landslide electoral losses for the Republicans later, reporters are still frantically searching for a way to interpret everything as good news for the GOP.