I agree with you, but I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying? In 2008 Obama won California by 3 million. He won in the rest of the nation, excluding

I agree with you, but I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying? In 2008 Obama won California by 3 million. He won in the rest of the nation, excluding California, by 7 million. In 2016 Clinton won in California by 4 million. She lost in the rest of the country, excluding California, by a million. I completely agree that without excessive spending her margin of defeat, outside of California, would likely have been greater. But this also shows that the spending alone does not, in current times, map strongly to votes. And I hope this will continue to be a thing. In my opinion, people are overestimating the significance of the centralized internet forces, such as Facebook, and discounting the significance of decentralized internet forces - such as discussions perhaps not dissimilar to the one you and I are sharing. There's no doubt that advertising has a significant effect, but I think it's perhaps less than ever before largely because people half way around the world from one another can chat and have far more relevant conversations than any sort of 'Hi, I'm Bob. My opponent's an asshole. Vote for me!' piece, or even the more refined. 'Hi, I'm Bob. My meta-analytics indicate that you like broccoli. Omg, I do too. My opponent doesn't. He hates broccoli and all it stands for. Also, he's an asshole, like anybody who wouldn't like broccoli amirite!? Vote for me!' Even outside of the presidential consider things like Sanders. Yes at some point he was competitive in fund raising, but his success was not because of the fund raising. Rather his fund raising came as an effect, rather than a cause, of his success. And again that success was something that was driven by the decentralized and oft difficult to predict, let alone control, forces of internet communication.