Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Here's some interesting math analysis that I aggregated for y'all. If you're interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau...less_for_each_electoral_vote/#bottom-comments

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trum...clinton-did-on-his-way-to-the-presidency.html

His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-spending-idUSKBN1341JR

Donald Trump pulled off one of the biggest upsets in American political history when he toppled Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday - and he did it using far less cash than his rival.

Relying heavily on an unorthodox mix of social media, unfiltered rhetoric, and a knack for winning free TV time, the New York real estate businessman likely paid less than $5 per vote during his insurgent White House bid, about half what Clinton paid, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance records and voting data. Those figures assume the candidates spent all the funds they raised.

Trump's cost-effective win has upended prevailing concepts about the influence of money in American politics and raised the question of whether a lean, media-savvy campaign can become the new model for winning office in the United States.

I do maths so you don't have to:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Trump total spent ( Campaign committee + outside groups) = $285,570,781
Trump total popular vote = 59,588,436 votes

Trump cost per vote = $4.79​

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000019
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Clinton total spent ( Campaign committee + outside groups) = $609,113,236
Clinton total popular vote = 59,794,935 votes

Clinton cost per vote = $10.19​

​

Another infographic: https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/iE3PcBOrwPz?vlp_ver=1#0-Presidential-Candidates-Cost-Per-Vote

This probably helped too:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/317770/how-did-trump-win-with-far-less-donor-cash

According to data analytics firm mediaQuant, Mr Trump garnered about $5 billion worth of free media coverage during the election campaign, more than twice the amount earned by Mrs Clinton, a lifelong politician who served as secretary of state, senator, and first lady at different times in her career.

The firm added up all the unpaid coverage the candidates had in newspapers, magazines and social media and then compares the sum to what a comparable amount of coverage, with the same kind of reach, would have cost in advertising.

Compared to other candidates in the general election:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/dona...pending-way-less-than-typical-candidates.html

Donald Trump's campaign spending spiked in August, but it still looked frugal compared with recent nominees' spending ahead of the general election.

Trump's campaign has proven remarkably lean in the free-spending world of American politics, even in the general election. It has spent little on television ads and maintains a thin payroll, even as the November election draws near.

There was a history of this in the primary too (lol Jeb!)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ush-has-spent-more-than-5000-per-vote-so-far/

Jeb Bush has spent more than $5,000 per vote so far

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-new-hampshire-spending_us_56ba9c76e4b0c3c5504f6163

After spending $2800 per vote in Iowa, Jeb Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, have continued the spree by paying $1,150 per vote in New Hampshire.

Investing an egregious amount of money in ads landed Bush in fourth place with 11 percent of the vote, according to election results as of Tuesday night.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-fundraising-221030

As Donald Trump was racking up an impressive string of GOP primary victories last month, he was actually spending less than his nearest rival Ted Cruz and just a tiny fraction of his would-be general election opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to campaign finance filings.

The filings, submitted Sunday with the Federal Election Commission, show that, while Cruz and Clinton continue to amass campaign infrastructure, Trump mostly continues to skate by on a tour de force of splashy rallies, free media and Twitter taunts.

Trump spent $9.5 million in February, compared with Cruz’s $17.5 million and Clinton’s $31.6 million, according to the filings. They show that the biggest February spender was Clinton’s stubborn rival for the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders, who spent $41 million as he desperately tried to keep pace with Clinton.

In fact, while Cruz, Clinton, Sanders and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (whose low-idling campaign spent $3.6 million last month) all increased their spending in February, Trump actually decreased his.

Poignant paragraph:

It’s a remarkable stat that’s a testament to just how completely Trump has defied campaign industry conventions. But it also worries Republicans who are not convinced that Trump’s bare-bones operation will fare well in a general election against a Clinton juggernaut that has spent nearly a year assiduously cultivating a major donor network, stockpiling cash and strategically building infrastructure across the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-good-deal-on-how-much-hes-spending-per-vote/

Overall, Bernie Sanders has spent more than Hillary Clinton per vote, doing so by wide margins in February and March. There are three very clear reasons for this. The first is that Sanders has consistently raised more money than Clinton in 2016. The second is that Clinton has gotten a lot more votes.

The third is that Clinton's spending is bolstered by outside groups. If you compare total spending on behalf of the candidates with the number of votes each has received, the gap between the two closes. Clinton and groups supporting her have raised $24.91 for each vote she's received. Sanders and groups supporting him have raised $23.83. That's raised, not spent. But it helps explain part of the gap between the two Democrats.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e80b...-campaign-raced-through-50-million-last-month

While both candidates are raising huge sums from donors, their lopsided spending lays bare the difference in the two major party presidential campaigns. Clinton is running a conventional operation featuring multimillion-dollar ad buys and expansive voter outreach. Trump has kept spending down by enjoying seemingly limitless free media coverage and outsourcing the guts of his voter contact duties to the Republican Party.

The spending disparity has also become a favored Trump boast.

"Our expenditures on advertising, our expenditures on people, our expenditures on everything are a tiny fraction. And yet we're minimum tied," Trump said Tuesday at a rally in Kenansville, North Carolina. "If you can spend less and be winning, that's a positive thing, right?"

You might remember this from the debates, too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preside...lary-clinton-donald-trump-fact-check-hofstra/

11:19 p.m. Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton has spent “hundreds of millions of dollars” on negative ads against him and that he is now “winning or tied” in the polls after spending “practically nothing.”

TRUMP STATEMENT: “She spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue, they’re untrue and they’re misrepresentations and I will tell you this, Lester, it’s not nice and I don’t deserve that. But it’s certainly not a nice thing that she’s done. It’s hundreds of millions of ads and the only gratifying thing is, I saw the the polls come in today and with all of that money over $200 million spent and I’m either winning or tied and I’ve spent practically nothing.”

FACT CHECK: This is partially false. Clinton has not yet spent “hundreds of millions of dollars” on advertising – she has spent just about $100 million overall. Clinton spent $109.4 million on ads through Sept. 13, according to Bloomberg, compared to Trump’s $18.7 million. A Politico article from Aug. 23 cited data from Advertising Analytics as saying that 55 percent of Clinton’s ads were attacks on Trump and 45 percent were positive spots.

However, he is correct in saying that he has spent “practically nothing” on ads compared to Clinton (so far – although his campaign said he’s preparing a $140 million investment) and he is tied in many polls (though not winning in most).

And finally, since we're talking about advertisements, here's some bonus reading.

http://adage.com/article/campaign-t...cialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

How Did Hillary Clinton Screw This Up? For Starters, Her Advertising Was All Wrong

So where did Hillary Clinton go wrong? Other than, well, being Hillary Clinton -- a widely disliked and distrusted candidate?
Ad Age Editor Ken Wheaton just asked me if I thought Donald Trump's triumph is about "traditional advertising and millions in spending being useless."
My short answer: Actually, no.
My longer answer is that, while Donald Trump obviously benefited from an unprecedented level of free media coverage, which convinced him for much of the race that he didn't need to waste money on ads, in the end Team Trump did, in fact, plow a ton of money into advertising -- and it cunningly, strategically outperformed tone-deaf Team Clinton.
To put that another way, Clinton badly screwed up her ad game.

It seemed like every ad that Clinton and her allies released in the ensuing months was simply a variation on the theme that Donald Trump is a big jerk. In fact, as recently as Sunday, Clinton's campaign released a video titled "10 minutes of Donald Trump demeaning, objectifying, and insulting women."
Whereas Trump's campaign released dead-simple, exceedingly traditional ads related to Big Issues.

The irony is that the Clinton camp actually did have highly detailed plans of attack regarding the economy, ISIS and more -- in contrast to Trump's silly, empty "I alone can fix it"-style declarations. But, again, the Clinton campaign put all its advertising and messaging eggs in one basket -- one, ahem, deplorable basket -- creating a Clinton-branding vacuum that Trump and his allies were more than happy to fill with relentless messaging about her corruption.

Clinton, hyperfocused on pointing out the obvious -- that Trump is crude and unpredictable -- let Trump define who she is to millions of voters.
One more thing: The Clinton campaign's condescension backfired badly -- the "basket of deplorables" revolted against her. Hillary Clinton not only misread white, working-class America, she misread American pop culture, how many real Americans think and talk, and why many real Americans embrace antiheroes.

 

[Count Dookkake]

That's why he's a successful businessman.

 

[TheMan]

just add this to the pile of evidence that the dems were thoroughly fucked, like a jackhammer, no lube.

 

[kunonabi]

I wouldn't mind a trend of less money being spent on elections going forward

 

[Team Alucard]

Not when you factor in the value of all the free media coverage he got.

 

[shintoki]

That's why he's a successful businessman.

You know it's a selling point now.

I'll do it for 40% the cost

 

[Rentahamster]

Not when you factor in the value of all the free media coverage he got.

I included that aspect in my OP.

Also, it's free.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

The media made up the difference.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Remember when so many of us were incredulous at how he lacked a ground game and had pisspoor fundraising and GOTV efforts? Man...

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Remember when so many of us were incredulous at how he lacked a ground game and had pisspoor fundraising and GOTV efforts? Man...

Simpler times.

 

[TheMan]

The media made up the difference.

pretty much. that orange motherfucker was on the news 24/7

 

[DragonSworne]

What did Clinton even do with all that money?

I hardly saw any of her rallies while Trump was having one almost everyday.

 

[Rentahamster]

Remember when so many of us were incredulous at how he lacked a ground game and had pisspoor fundraising and GOTV efforts? Man...

I 'member.

 

[QuantumBro]

So much for big money buying elections.

 

[God Dayumm]

What did Clinton even do with all that money?

I hardly saw any of her rallies while Trump was having one almost everyday.

Smells of corruption and crookery, doesn't it?


I kid.

 

[Rentahamster]

What did Clinton even do with all that money?

I hardly saw any of her rallies while Trump was having one almost everyday.

http://metrocosm.com/where-does-all-that-campaign-money-go-interactive-graphic/

See here to see who was riding in limos, and who was staying at Motel 6.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

pretty much. that orange motherfucker was on the news 24/7

*sits camera in front of empty podium*. Trump should be out within the next hour, don't go anywhere.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

*sits camera in front of empty podium*. Trump should be out within the next hour, don't go anywhere.

this is how hillarys exit speech was this morning.

"clinton speach at 10:30am! watch live stream here!"......clinton walks up to podium at 11:30am.

can't stand when media pulls this shit

 

[HarryKS]

Guy won on all the line. All of it.

 

[Rentahamster]

Guy won on all the line. All of it.

"all the line"? What does that mean?

 

[God Dayumm]

http://metrocosm.com/where-does-all-that-campaign-money-go-interactive-graphic/

See here to see who was riding in limos, and who was staying at Motel 6.

Donald Trump

$454 spent at McDonald’s

lol

 

[LordKasual]

It's because his core audience were uneducated rural area bubblefolk who only need vague promises of grandeur to be swayed

the rest of the dumbass country (+-48%) didn't even fucking vote

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Trump lacked a ground game and yet he still spanked the DNC and the Hillary campaign.

Unbelievable.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

So much for big money buying elections.

This is the first time that has happened. A fluke, or a sign of things to come?


Either way it makes this sting worse and worse.



24 hours ago when they reported that fireworks were cancelled, nobody paniced. It was probably nothing. But they knew.. They already knew how things were going with the early polling before any states had been called that it was looking bad.

 

[rtcn63]

But did he pay any taxes on each vote?

 

[Rentahamster]

This is the first time that has happened. A fluke, or a sign of things to come?

That will depend on how much of a liar he is.

 

[TheMan]

It's because his core audience were uneducated rural area bubblefolk who only need vague promises of grandeur to be swayed

I think this has been disproven. You are describing the most vocal portion of his base, but prior to election day, data showed that the median income for a trump supporter was something like 70k, and i"m pretty sure that their rates of having a college degree was significantly higher than the average American.

That was pretty scary to hear- rich, supposedly educated people are just fine and dandy with letting a racist misogynist run the country- because they themselves are also racist and misogynist.. They'll just smile to your face while fucking you over after you turn around.

 

[HarryKS]

"all the line"? What does that mean?

He won like he predicted. He was almost an entire one-man army.

 

[Kayhan]

So much for big money buying elections.

Hillary was so despised that she couldn't even buy her way to the White House.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Smells of corruption and crookery, doesn't it?


I kid.

Why should you? or is it inconceivable that it is corruption?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Trump had many advantages over Hillary though. Oh so many.

 

[FStubbs]

Trump lacked a ground game and yet he still spanked the DNC and the Hillary campaign.

Unbelievable.

He beat Cruz and Jeb! who had great ground games too. The power of celebrity and free media coverage.

 

[UnluckyKate]

Trump won a year ago when he went first into the primary with a loud and abnoxious bang of bigotry.

He had won at the precise moment when he got the traction.

 

[Infinite]

He knows how tv works. He basically was awarded free coverage

 

[Audioboxer]

Regardless of the outcome this is a disgusting amount of money to be involved in politics, all round. It's just made even worse when the loser spends a crap ton more than the winner.

I feel sympathy and also slight embarrassment for some of GAF that appeared to donate a fair bit to Hillary. Nearly anytime we seen Trump saying something shitty we seen "just donated to Hillary" posts. Much good that done

 

[E92 M3]

The media gave the win to Clinton. Anything with Trump was mostly negative. The biggest problem was hubris. Trump was severely underestimated, but there was no point of talking about that here. After the primaries, if the message wasn't pro-Clinton it was drowned out or ridiculed.

Now everyone is coming out that couldn't speak before.

 

[mclem]

I had really hoped I could retire this image, but I guess it's still of use. Although 'primary' should be replaced with 'presidential' now.

 

[old manatee]

Clinton sure got her money's worth on those Correct the Record spammers.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

The media made up the difference.

Media gave him billions of dollars of free coverage, he couldn't sneeze without MSNBC and CNN having panel discussions analyzing it

 

[Templar Wizard]

Media gave him billions of dollars of free coverage, he couldn't sneeze without MSNBC and CNN having panel discussions analyzing it

Engineered Free coverage. There is a difference.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Media gave him billions of dollars of free coverage, he couldn't sneeze without MSNBC and CNN having panel discussions analyzing it

Blame the Clinton campaign and the DNC as that was actually what they wanted

What was not often acknowledged in Trump’s heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

They wanted the media to show and continually talk about him because they thought it would hurt him in the yes of the public.

 

[Oemenia]

Mah queen has money it seems, lots of it.

 

[JORMBO]

Media gave him billions of dollars of free coverage, he couldn't sneeze without MSNBC and CNN having panel discussions analyzing it

Is this really a good thing though? Most of the media I saw on CNN towards him was very negative.

 

[Bunta]

"Under budget and ahead of schedule."

 

[Calamari41]

Trump lacked a ground game and yet he still spanked the DNC and the Hillary campaign.

Unbelievable.

Having an amazing ground game when nobody likes you just means that you knocked on doors and bothered a lot of people.

The Clinton campaign probably drove a lot of Trump voters to the polls, too.

 

[Zantetsuken]

Not to mention he didn't pay a lot of his staffers either. Trump even had to borrow from his own businesses did he not? A lot of GOP members wouldn't support him. Of course less money was spent; he barely had any to go around.

 

[God Dayumm]

Why should you? or is it inconceivable that it is corruption?

It is not inconceivable and I wonder myself. But there is zero evidence of it so I only brought it up as a joke, I can't make any serious argument about it.

 

[Suikoguy]

Any analysis on media coverage yet?

 

[lyrick]

The people in the midwest, south and rural areas in general are used to working for less.

It's typically normalized with "cost of living" is less or other such shit.

 

[Rentahamster]

Any analysis on media coverage yet?

You mean like this?

According to data analytics firm mediaQuant, Mr Trump garnered about $5 billion worth of free media coverage during the election campaign, more than twice the amount earned by Mrs Clinton, a lifelong politician who served as secretary of state, senator, and first lady at different times in her career.

The firm added up all the unpaid coverage the candidates had in newspapers, magazines and social media and then compares the sum to what a comparable amount of coverage, with the same kind of reach, would have cost in advertising.