4 ms·

I don't believe the numbers. Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. She had the most sophisticated ops (including Groundwork (Eric Schmidt-backed startup)). How could C

I don't believe the numbers. Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. She had the most sophisticated ops (including Groundwork (Eric Schmidt-backed startup)). How could Clinton campaign have spent half the other when it was their area of competence ?

swarnie_ 9y ago
I'm convinced 99% of T_D users who spent 12 months posting Pepe memes were actual people inspired by a paid 1%. You can probably save a lot of money if so many will "work" for free.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Your misunderstanding guarantees you will make bad predictions. There is even a place for US citizens to bet money on it; predictit. Re-stating you statement means a 1% of frog posts wins elections. Why? You really don't know. By your logic you should be able to use it though. All JB needs is the right frog...
- insickness 9y ago
  I would agree with you if Trump weren't such a leftfield candidate. There were plenty of other much safer investments establishment Republicans that would give the 1% a return on their investment than Trump. No one believed he would win at every stage of the game.
IncRnd 9y ago
From the article, "But Trump’s FB campaigns were more complex than Clinton’s and better leveraged Facebook’s ability to optimize for outcomes." Also, "The data scientist says 84 percent of Trump’s budget asked people on Facebook to take an action, like donating, compared with 56 percent of Clinton’s."
Spooky23 9y ago
She outspent Obama too early on. Trump is a guy who does whatever he can to get attention. Given the pathetic state of the GOP slate and the less than inspirational Hillary campaign... people just needed a little push.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  By pathetic, do you mean cleaning house? Last I checked, winning the presidency with Ohio or Pennsylvania to spare isn't pathetic. The old GOP is begging to lose the house and senate. Having control without a president playing ball exposed them way too much. Neither will happen, but it's instructive to watch Ryan's PAC fund DEM's. Consider McCain. Voted how many times on a full repeal of the "Affordable Care Act" and then when the exact bill had a chance of passing?... Ryan... Graham... McConnel... same party.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Trump exists partially because the parade of candidates in the primaries was really... not good. For all of his faults, Trump isn't a plastic person. There's a reason why Trump was seen as a breath of fresh air to many, and a reason why the Russians saw an opportunity in him.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848
- swebs 9y ago
  Clinton outspent Trump over the entire campaign. Clinton spent $1.18 billion, where Trump spent $617 million. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia... So Clinton outspent Trump by nearly double in the entire election, but according to the article, it was the opposite when regarding Facebook spending.
  - alanlovestea 9y ago
    Clinton may spent most money on traditional media channels and wasted her money as described in the article.
pg_bot 9y ago
The most critical thing you need to consider when evaluating talent is value over replacement.[0] While Hillary Clinton certainly had fantastic credentials (Secretary of State, Senator) her track record for accomplishments[1] while in those positions is IMO indistinguishable from a fictitious replacement level politician. She was the presumptive nominee in 2008 and lost, but you could chalk that up to Barack Obama being highly competent. There isn't much proof that she was an extraordinary politician, in fact there is a large body of evidence to the contrary. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player [1] https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments-4101811 https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments...

swarnie_ 9y ago

I'm convinced 99% of T_D users who spent 12 months posting Pepe memes were actual people inspired by a paid 1%. You can probably save a lot of money if so many will "work" for free.

jakeogh 9y ago
Your misunderstanding guarantees you will make bad predictions. There is even a place for US citizens to bet money on it; predictit. Re-stating you statement means a 1% of frog posts wins elections. Why? You really don't know. By your logic you should be able to use it though. All JB needs is the right frog...
insickness 9y ago
I would agree with you if Trump weren't such a leftfield candidate. There were plenty of other much safer investments establishment Republicans that would give the 1% a return on their investment than Trump. No one believed he would win at every stage of the game.

IncRnd 9y ago

From the article, "But Trump’s FB campaigns were more complex than Clinton’s and better leveraged Facebook’s ability to optimize for outcomes." Also, "The data scientist says 84 percent of Trump’s budget asked people on Facebook to take an action, like donating, compared with 56 percent of Clinton’s."

Spooky23 9y ago

She outspent Obama too early on. Trump is a guy who does whatever he can to get attention. Given the pathetic state of the GOP slate and the less than inspirational Hillary campaign... people just needed a little push.

jakeogh 9y ago
By pathetic, do you mean cleaning house? Last I checked, winning the presidency with Ohio or Pennsylvania to spare isn't pathetic. The old GOP is begging to lose the house and senate. Having control without a president playing ball exposed them way too much. Neither will happen, but it's instructive to watch Ryan's PAC fund DEM's. Consider McCain. Voted how many times on a full repeal of the "Affordable Care Act" and then when the exact bill had a chance of passing?... Ryan... Graham... McConnel... same party.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Trump exists partially because the parade of candidates in the primaries was really... not good. For all of his faults, Trump isn't a plastic person. There's a reason why Trump was seen as a breath of fresh air to many, and a reason why the Russians saw an opportunity in him.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848
swebs 9y ago
Clinton outspent Trump over the entire campaign. Clinton spent $1.18 billion, where Trump spent $617 million. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia... So Clinton outspent Trump by nearly double in the entire election, but according to the article, it was the opposite when regarding Facebook spending.
- alanlovestea 9y ago
  Clinton may spent most money on traditional media channels and wasted her money as described in the article.

pg_bot 9y ago

The most critical thing you need to consider when evaluating talent is value over replacement.[0] While Hillary Clinton certainly had fantastic credentials (Secretary of State, Senator) her track record for accomplishments[1] while in those positions is IMO indistinguishable from a fictitious replacement level politician. She was the presumptive nominee in 2008 and lost, but you could chalk that up to Barack Obama being highly competent. There isn't much proof that she was an extraordinary politician, in fact there is a large body of evidence to the contrary. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player [1] https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments-4101811 https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments...