2016 Postmortem

portlander23

(2,078 posts) Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:16 AM Dec 2016

Here's How Much Less Than Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Spent On the Election

Here's How Much Less Than Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Spent On the Election
Associated Press (via Fortune)

Clinton’s campaign placed a far greater emphasis than Trump on television advertising, a more traditional way of reaching swaths of voters. She spent $72 million on TV ads and about $16 million on internet ads in the final weeks.

The former secretary of state also spent more than $12 million on travel—about double what Trump spent. Clinton, who not only had a money advantage over Trump but a staffing edge, spent more than $4 million on a nearly 900-strong payroll.

Still, Clinton’s top campaign aides have acknowledged in postelection appearances that it didn’t always spend money in the right places.

On Clinton’s side, Priorities USA—which raised and spent more than any super PAC in history—landed $16 million in the final weeks of the campaign. That brought its total haul to about $192 million.

Clinton definitely had the fundraising edge. On the other hand, Donald Trump was much better at playing the press and getting free air time, and the fact that it as mostly negative coverage didn't seem to matter. This, and the Sanders campaign, calls into question how much the Democratic Party needs to rely on large donors and dark money. Literally a billion dollars wasn't enough to stop a racist with a Twitter account.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's How Much Less Than Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Spent On the Election (Original Post) portlander23 Dec 2016 OP

The Russians didn't charge get the red out Dec 2016 #1

That bill will come due (n/t) PJMcK Dec 2016 #10

"the Sanders campaign" lost badly. nt LexVegas Dec 2016 #2

I missed the part where the Clinton campaign prevented President Trump portlander23 Dec 2016 #3

"the Sanders campaign" didn't even make the team. He got cut early. nt LexVegas Dec 2016 #4

Yep portlander23 Dec 2016 #5

"the Sanders campaign" marginalized minorities and was rightfully cast aside. He got destroyed. LexVegas Dec 2016 #8

40% of the vote on a shoestring isn't badly. sfwriter Dec 2016 #7

No it didn't. 43% isn't winning, but it's not "losing badly". N/t TCJ70 Dec 2016 #9

Wall-to-Wall positive coverage on AM radio FOR FREE AleksS Dec 2016 #6

and wall-to-wall on TV especially CNN were he had 2 plants underpants Dec 2016 #12

Keep trying...nt SidDithers Dec 2016 #11

He didn't need to spend. Reportedly he got billions of free air time. LisaL Dec 2016 #13

get the red out

(13,588 posts)

1. The Russians didn't charge

Reply to portlander23 (Original post)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:19 AM

Dec 2016

Or at least, not YET.

PJMcK

(22,886 posts)

10. That bill will come due (n/t)

Reply to get the red out (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:53 AM

Dec 2016

LexVegas

(6,576 posts)

2. "the Sanders campaign" lost badly. nt

Reply to portlander23 (Original post)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:24 AM

Dec 2016

portlander23

(2,078 posts)

3. I missed the part where the Clinton campaign prevented President Trump

Reply to LexVegas (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:26 AM

Dec 2016

LexVegas

(6,576 posts)

4. "the Sanders campaign" didn't even make the team. He got cut early. nt

Reply to portlander23 (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:27 AM

Dec 2016

portlander23

(2,078 posts)

5. Yep

Reply to LexVegas (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:29 AM

Dec 2016

We learned that Sanders wasn't able to convince Democratic primary voters that he had a better shot of stoping Trump (in spite of polls), and Clinton couldn't convince the nation she was better than a racist.

Go team!

LexVegas

(6,576 posts)

8. "the Sanders campaign" marginalized minorities and was rightfully cast aside. He got destroyed.

Reply to portlander23 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:32 AM

Dec 2016

Clinton got most of the votes, much to your disappointment.

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)

7. 40% of the vote on a shoestring isn't badly.

Reply to LexVegas (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:30 AM

Dec 2016

Taken with trump, its says the establishment model of big money and tv buys may be flawed in the twitter age.

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)

9. No it didn't. 43% isn't winning, but it's not "losing badly". N/t

Reply to LexVegas (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:38 AM

Dec 2016

AleksS

(1,699 posts)

6. Wall-to-Wall positive coverage on AM radio FOR FREE

Reply to portlander23 (Original post)

Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:29 AM

Dec 2016

Wall-to-Wall positive coverage on AM radio FOR FREE didn't hurt Trump either.

Keep in mind, that Democrats don't have an entire form of media (with a die-hard, dedicated following) 100% committed to them and supporting them.

Of course Democrats have to out-spend Republicans and buy up advertising. The GOP gets the vast bulk of their advertising for free. If you added up the media value and cost of their free press, it'd make Hillary's totals look like peanuts.