I'm using numbers from Dean Weingarten's Analysis of I-594's passage.
Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.
$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.
The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594. According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.
What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?
Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent.
Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.
(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)