|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 10, 2016 7:39:48 GMT -5
It is true--as Meg Whitman demonstrated--that one can't always buy their way into public office. Personal fortunes don't always mean triumph.
That said, most analysts tend to see fundraising a little differently. That's because fundraising is indicative of support to some extent. Candidates who seriously out-fundraise their opponents win. Like Obama.
And yet...http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spent-about-half-of-what-clinton-did-on-his-way-to-the-presidency.html
That's pretty shocking stuff, imo. Trump talked a lot about how he was going to spend a ton of money of his own early on, but it looks like he never did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 10, 2016 10:28:07 GMT -5
What Trump said and what he does is often two totally different things, but the major networks and 24 news cycle gave Trump all the exposure he could ever want or need.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 10, 2016 12:12:13 GMT -5
If the message ignites passion or strikes just the right chord, then it takes on a life of its own. The fact that he was so outrageous in many ways certainly kept the spotlight on him without much effort in terms of campaign staff.
I wonder if the management of Trump's campaign speaks toward a more efficient, business-like approach to implementation of policy. Which is what a lot of people are hoping for who voted for him. I really think this is an exciting experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Ledbetter on Nov 12, 2016 9:10:53 GMT -5
Trump didn't need to spend the money because the press and social media outlets constantly shared every outrageous thing he said or did. All he had to do was say outrageous things and it brought him tremendous press coverage. There is an ancient adage in marketing that goes something like "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they spell your name right." Trump worked that to the hilt. The established media, pundits, etc. all threw their weight behind Clinton but that wasn't enough in the face of social media and Trump being outrageous.
Social media magnified the press coverage and intense online arguments ensued. To put it bluntly, this election got pussy-level personal.The emotionality of arguing with people you actually know is far more motivating than anything a political ad could achieve. Perhaps nothing drives voters to the polls quite like an opportunity to put an exclamation point on the end of an online argument that got too heated.
Keep in mind that the election was extremely close, with Hillary winning the popular vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 12, 2016 10:48:36 GMT -5
Trump didn't need to spend the money because the press and social media outlets constantly shared every outrageous thing he said or did. All he had to do was say outrageous things and it brought him tremendous press coverage. There is an ancient adage in marketing that goes something like "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they spell your name right." Trump worked that to the hilt. The established media, pundits, etc. all threw their weight behind Clinton but that wasn't enough in the face of social media and Trump being outrageous. Social media magnified the press coverage and intense online arguments ensued. To put it bluntly, this election got pussy-level personal.The emotionality of arguing with people you actually know is far more motivating than anything a political ad could achieve. Perhaps nothing drives voters to the polls quite like an opportunity to put an exclamation point on the end of an online argument that got too heated. Keep in mind that the election was extremely close, with Hillary winning the popular vote. While I agree with your first paragraph, voter participation was actually down. AFAIK, Trump drew about the normal 59 million votes, while Clinton's count down was several million (5?) from what Obama had in 2012. If Clinton had been the motivator Obama was, those millions of votes would have probably cost Trump the White House. So perhaps her voters were motivated to argue, but they weren't actually motivated to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Ledbetter on Nov 12, 2016 11:31:12 GMT -5
Trump didn't need to spend the money because the press and social media outlets constantly shared every outrageous thing he said or did. All he had to do was say outrageous things and it brought him tremendous press coverage. There is an ancient adage in marketing that goes something like "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they spell your name right." Trump worked that to the hilt. The established media, pundits, etc. all threw their weight behind Clinton but that wasn't enough in the face of social media and Trump being outrageous. Social media magnified the press coverage and intense online arguments ensued. To put it bluntly, this election got pussy-level personal.The emotionality of arguing with people you actually know is far more motivating than anything a political ad could achieve. Perhaps nothing drives voters to the polls quite like an opportunity to put an exclamation point on the end of an online argument that got too heated. Keep in mind that the election was extremely close, with Hillary winning the popular vote. While I agree with your first paragraph, voter participation was actually down. AFAIK, Trump drew about the normal 59 million votes, while Clinton's count down was several million (5?) from what Obama had in 2012. If Clinton had been the motivator Obama was, those millions of votes would have probably cost Trump the White House. So perhaps her voters were motivated to argue, but they weren't actually motivated to vote. Yep, you are absolutely right about that, Don! I'd originally written in my post that turnout was high: I was wrong and I corrected my reply a couple of minutes after posting it. It was a misconception based on the very long lines I experienced at the poll, and reports of the same across the country - weird how the low turnout felt so high at the time. In any case, you must have read my post prior to my edit, which I didn't flag since I didn't think anyone was here and only a few minutes had passed. When you quoted my post, I'd already edited it to remove my misconception about turnout. I'm owning up lest my unflagged edit confuses anyone. . |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 12, 2016 11:38:25 GMT -5
What was with those long lines when turnout was actually lower? Weird.
|
|
