The biannual reminder that politics is expensive business usually provokes a predictable excess of Democratic cries to “get the money out of politics!” Harry Reid, soon-to-be-ex-majority leader, has spent the last year sputtering without end about the Koch brothers. But as Democrats point fingers for Tuesday’s coast-to-coast losses, they have been conspicuously quiet about this election’s outlays.

And make no mistake, a lot of money changed hands this election cycle: a cool $4 billion, give or take — more than in any past midterm. This cycle also saw the first $100 million Senate race, in North Carolina. But in 2014, Democrats cannot blame Citizens United for their electoral woes.

Consider North Carolina. Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan outspent her opponent, Republican Thom Tillis, by more than $14 million, or almost three to one, according to Federal Election Commission figures reported by the Center for Responsive Politics. Outside spending helped to reduce that gap, but it did not eliminate it. Including party committees, outside groups spent $6.5 million supporting Hagan and $35.6 million attacking Tillis; other outside groups spent $13.8 supporting Tillis and $20.9 million attacking Hagan. Recognizing that spending against Republicans is not necessarily advertisement in favor of Democrats, and that that money is used for a variety of purposes, it is still the case that pro-Hagan/anti-Tillis groups outspent their counterparts by more than $7 million.

And what did Democrats get for that money? A new Republican senator.

A slightly different sequence of events took place in the closely watched Iowa Senate race. Democrat Bruce Braley outspent his Republican challenger, Joni Ernst, by $2.4 million. Meanwhile, outside spending for Ernst and against Braley eliminated that gap, favoring Ernst by $4.2 million. But in a race that cost $85 million total, a $1.8 million discrepancy between the two sides cannot account for the result — an 8.5-point victory for Ernst at the polls.

A similar situation prevailed in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Kansas. Republicans outspent their opponents, but the disparity cannot account for the margins of victory. In Arkansas, Republican Tom Cotton ousted a two-term incumbent by 17 points. In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell trounced his challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, by 15 points. And after so much attention was lavished on Independent candidate Greg Orman in Kansas, he lost to Republican incumbent Pat Roberts by nearly 11 points.

One final scenario: In Virginia, incumbent Democrat Mark Warner outspent his Republican opponent, Ed Gillespie, by just under $7 million. In outside spending, pro-Warner/anti-Gillespie groups outspent their counterparts by $1.2 million. A spending gap of more than $8 million was hardly insignificant in a race that, by comparison with contests across the country, cost pennies. Yet Gillespie shocked political observers with his performance on Tuesday, and the race may be headed for a recount.

Money was a crucial factor in each of these races, no question. Tom Steyer, the Koch brothers, the teachers’ unions — they all played their role, and the moneyed elements on both sides will continue to do so in elections to come. But spending and electoral outcomes do not always correspond. Voters respond to more than just the quantity of advertisements that find their way onto the airwaves. Such was the case this year.