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

[portlander23]

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.

[get the red out]

1. The Russians didn't charge

Or at least, not YET.

[PJMcK]

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

[LexVegas]

2. "the Sanders campaign" lost badly. nt

[portlander23]

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

[LexVegas]

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

[portlander23]

5. Yep

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]

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

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

[sfwriter]

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

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

[TCJ70]

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

[AleksS]

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

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.

[underpants]

12. and wall-to-wall on TV especially CNN were he had 2 plants

which CNN had to know were plants.

[SidDithers]

11. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[LisaL]

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