I'm not sure that's in any way demonstrated here. If Bush didn't have quite a bit of money he wouldn't even be on the ballot for the vote he lost. We've got ample evidence that money is extremely powerful in elections.

It would be more accurate to say the money, while still a necessary condition for competing, is not a sufficient condition for winning. You have to have...well, a personality, too.

You mean, except for Marco Rubio who was the 3rd largest spend per vote, and a total spend of 11.8 million to Bush's 14.9 [1], and likely placed 3rd at least partially because of his ad spend. Bush is ultimately just not well liked by the new Republican base, and yes, no amount of money will change that. But among the candidates that resonate with that base, money has power.

[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/and-the-total-amount-spent-campai...

If you factor in the TV time spent covering the individual campaigns, which is the broadcasters betting their money, I'm not so sure money had little influence. I wonder if anyone has compiled the coverage times of each campaign.