• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2016: Trump paid 63% less per electoral vote than Clinton; $5 per popular vote

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deku Tree

Member
I wonder how much lower Trump's total spending per vote would be when you factor in how much he dramatically overcharged his campaign funds for using properties and other things that he already owned?
 
If there's one thing from this campaign that upsets the apple cart of arguments, it's that 'the only thing that wins elections is money.' Trump had fewer donations, had fewer big donations, had less money from special interest groups, and spent less money than Clinton, and he won. Although you don't hear this argument as much when your preferred candidate wins... When Obama outspent and easily beat Romney in '12 and McCain in '08, you don't hear this argument as much, but when Bush outspent Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, it was a major campaign narrative.

This played out similarly in the GOP primary. He spent much less than the likes of Jeb Bush.
 
Is this really a good thing though? Most of the media I saw on CNN towards him was very negative.

It fell right into his hands, he just spun all that negative coverage into "you see! the mainstream establishment media hate me!!" *loud eruptions of applause all around the country ensues*
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I wonder how much lower Trump's total spending per vote would be when you factor in how much he dramatically overcharged his campaign funds for using properties and other things that he already owned?

So you're saying that if he gave himself a discount on using his own stuff, his cost per vote would have been even lower?
 

samn

Member
If there's one thing from this campaign that upsets the apple cart of arguments, it's that 'the only thing that wins elections is money.' Trump had fewer donations, had fewer big donations, had less money from special interest groups, and spent less money than Clinton, and he won. Although you don't hear this argument as much when your preferred candidate wins... When Obama outspent and easily beat Romney in '12 and McCain in '08, you don't hear this argument as much, but when Bush outspent Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, it was a major campaign narrative.

This played out similarly in the GOP primary. He spent much less than the likes of Jeb Bush.

I wonder if money has a bigger impact when poured into hundreds of smaller elections?
 

HarryKS

Member
"Under budget and ahead of schedule."


Exactly. He's a winner. There's no two ways about it. He's conquered everything there was to conquer.
The only thing he's never had was being genuinely good-looking. But he's tall, he has lots of money, he's charismatic, he has a pretty wife, he has healthy and wealthy children and he's now President of the United States of America.

As much as people despise him, he's the most American thing to come out of America for a while.
 

Reorx

Member
Crazy to think he spend less money for the primaries than Jeb Bush.
I know he got a lot of Media coverage but here in Europe it was basically only negative, was it different in the US?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Crazy to think he spend less money for the primaries than Jeb Bush.
I know he got a lot of Media coverage but here in Europe it was basically only negative, was it different in the US?

They were going bonkers over how outrageous he was over here too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom