97.5% of Dem candidate's contributors in GA race are from out of state.

Compared to Democrats, most Republicans are far, far less aggressive, far less interested in politics, far less Machiavellian and far, far less cunning.  I suspect that's because virtually every survey shows conservatives are happier and more interested in doing family-oriented things than in scheming to swing a state election in a distant state.

For example, I can't imagine any conservative from, say, New York getting fired up enough to donate money to a House race in Georgia.  It's just not on their radar.  The thinking is, let the folks in that state sort out who they want to represent them.  Residents of other states shouldn't have any say.

Democrats, on the other hand.... There's a race in Georgia for an open House seat.  Obviously both parties would like their candidate to win, but national Democratic pols have mobilized their huge network of rich out-of-state donors to send money to the Democrat in this distant political race. 

Specifically, over the last two months 97.5% of the Democrat's campaign contributors were from out of state.  And donors from just two states--California and New York--accounted for a third of those.

And why would a resident of California want to donate money to swing the result of an election in distant Georgia? 

Control, baby.  They're desperate to regain control of congress, cuz that would give 'em the power to hold or delete hearings, to ignore past, highly-criminal acts by Hilliary, Loretta Lynch and the emperor, to de-fund the U.S. military (which Dems apparently hate), to spend more on welfare and business-killing regulations--you get the picture.

When there's an open seat (no incumbent running), when one candidate spends double the other's expenditures, the bigger-spender wins 99.9% of the time.

Both parties know that.  National Democrats have mobilized their out-of-state donors to exploit it.  Republicans don't have the killer instinct to shake their out-of-state base.  Oh well.