Then why are the likes of P&G rethinking their digital ads?

You know, even if the amount were $10 million, in the face of over $1 Billion, it's still peanuts.

If it were that easy, we'd be toppling regimes all over the world for pennies on the dollar but we're not because that's dreamland stuff.

Because an ad that makes people angry over a lie is 10 thousand times more effective than "buy our brand next time you shop". Why are we here commenting over a political story instead of about what toothpaste brand is best?

I don't think that captures it.

You're basically arguing the angriest electorate will win. Obama won on Hope.

I think what won the election this time was that people were a bit sick and tired of pols who promised all kinds of things but never delivered. Hillary promised all kinds of things and I would venture she never intended on delivering on many. Personally, I voted third party.

I mean, if we look at her political history, it's always been opportunistic -by that I mean changing political position if it favored her. From the Super predator stuff to opposition to gay marriage to many things in between. I think people were tired of that and thought Trump offered an alternative which even if it didn't match up in all counts, they could at least believe he had the US interest in mind (as opposed to globalists who might have other priorities.)

I think it's interesting that at one time the left campaigned against the mainstream left's globalist interventionist agenda but now they are proponents of globalism and interventionism and open borders. It's an interesting dynamic to witness.