15 ms·
> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Tr
by rs999gti 9y ago
> Most money offered gets to be president.
But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD.
She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16 https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
- s73ver_ 9y agoDoes that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?
- biomcgary 9y agoNatural disasters also get a lot of free press, if the ratings are high enough.
- Chaebixi 9y agoNatural disasters rely exclusively on word-of-mouth advertising. Political campaigns? not so much.
- FourPostWonder 9y agoHe didn't receive free press. His campaign hacked the ever living shit out of the progressive moral supremacism that drives modern narratives. You call it free press now, but during the election, you most likely called it "Haha! Look at this stupid buffoon! Oh please yes, reveal how dumb he is, this will totally help Hilary!" Pride before the fall.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- anonacct37 9y agoDon't know why you're getting downvoted. Trump was the best thing that ever happened to the media and they didn't stop talking about his antics for the entire election. He made them alot of money in clicks, and that's what journalism is about. Ultimate responsibility maybe lies somewhere else, but there's plenty of blame to go around and they emphatically deserve some of it.
- WalterBright 9y ago> they didn't stop talking about his antics They still haven't. Whenever I tune into CNN, all they ever talk about is Trump. I watch NBC instead.
- csours 9y agoI agree this is a legitimate question. How much would this add up to in 'in-kind' contributions? Have any media companies claimed in-kind contributions to the Trump Campaign or Trump Organization?
- kelukelugames 9y agoWasn't there an internal Apple document about the importance of free promotions its products receive in movies and shows? Found a quick link from google. http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-biggest-marketing-secret-just-got-revealed-in-federal-court-2012-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-biggest-marketing-secr...
- sgift 9y agoI risk to devolve this into a flame war, but I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election, so money spend by third parties to help get someone elected can be attributed to the corresponding campaign.
- drawnwren 9y agoYou are correct. This information would be useful, but surely we can't limit it to just one other country and one campaign?
- chc 9y agoUnless you have some amazing new information, one country and one campaign is about as bold as it seems reasonable to be.
- plussed_reader 9y agoI hear there might be Paradise on the horizon...
- eksu 9y agoSurely we shouldn’t investigate every country in the world in regards to every election we’ve had?
- drawnwren 9y agoIn fact, we do this already. The thing you're describing is commonly referred to as intelligence.
- Alex3917 9y ago> I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election Right now Russian companies are only alleged to have spent a few million dollars, so it's not clear that the investigation will show any material impact on the spending ratios.
- bduerst 9y agoIt worked for Scott Walker in the Wisconsin recall. He outspent his opponent 10:1 to win only by a couple points.
- jacquesm 9y agoThat's because a very large fraction of the voters there has their mind made up long before the elections and only a small fraction will end up deciding the vote. So all that money goes towards targeting a very small number of people and whichever way the vote goes in Wisconsin it will only be won by a few percentage points. To go beyond that you'd have to go back to Johnson vs Goldwater, which was before I was even born.
- bduerst 9y agoThis was advertising spend to blanket the state, across different broadcast mediums (radio, tv, etc.) It wasn't "highly targeted" to just a small demographic.
- jacquesm 9y agoIt was highly targeted to a small group of people: swing voters. I didn't use the word demographic. That those swing voters themselves are a mixed bunch is not relevant, all that expense went to influence just a very small fraction of the state population.
- webXL 9y agoAre you sure about that? Seems more like 2-to-1 according to this: http://www.wisdc.org/pr072512.php http://www.wisdc.org/pr072512.php
- anonacct37 9y ago$408M USD, but how many rubles?
- chimeracoder 9y ago> But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. In addition, we can look at state-level races to get more data on the effect of campaign spending. It turns out that, after a certain point[0], campaign spending does not correlate very well with campaign success, and in self-funded candidates in particular actually tend to underperform: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sometimes-money-cant-buy-you-votes/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sometimes-money-cant-bu... [0] ie, obviously your gubernatorial campaign won't get very far if you only have $1000, total. But the difference between $40MM (what Brown spent in his 2010 campaign for governor) and $200MM (what Meg Whitman spent in that same race) is a lot less than people think.
- celticninja 9y agoVersus Donald Trump's reported $408m. How much came from Putin et al?