> There's just a ton more money on the right - the Koch network and GOP billionaire donors dwarf the spending by progressives.

Clinton heavily outspent Trump in the last election.

"Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/someb...

Comparing the campaign spending does not capture the (vast) amounts of money spent by PACs. Indeed, one would expect Democrats to have more small-money, campaign donors, as opposed to large-dollar PAC donors.

I'm not satisfied with the off-hand dismissal of outside spending from the linked article. Since 2010, this has (arguably) been the more interesting area to scrutinize, and deserves more than a sentence.

I also recall the heavy domination of social media like Reddit by Clinton supporters. CNN was solidly in the Clinton advocacy camp, too. Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination. Trump was nominated despite the rather intense opposition from the GOP establishment.

The polls all predicted an easy coast to victory for Clinton. Even Trump on election night appeared shocked that he won, and seemed to have made no plans in case he won.

How do you reconcile that with the claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters? Do you have any figures?

I tried not to discuss my political views in my comment - I'm sorry if you feel that I lent support to one candidate or the other.

> Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination

I don't think this is true. Irrespective of whether there was impropriety at any particular election, there was no way Clinton would have lost the nomination by the time that Sanders was in his stride. The superdelegates all but assured this.

Incidentally, the Sanders campaign went from decrying the presence of superdelegates to courting them - they may be an unreasonable mechanism for elections, but both groups tried to use them to their advantage.

> claim that the Trump supporters vastly outspent the Clinton supporters

I made no such claim. I suspect that it's true, but my point is that looking at campaign donations (and Reddit activity) highlights the activity of low-dollar donors.

Finally, to put into perspective the numbers from the article you cited, it seems that PACs spent 4 billion USD (across all races) in 2016[1] - around four times the spending of the two presidential campaigns.

It seems complicated to total super-PAC spending. Many websites state that there was more money supporting Clinton/Democrats, but this may ignore Republican PACs that do not declare a party preference[2].

[1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-cam...

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2...

> I don't think this is true.

Donna Brazile (Chairman of the DNC) wrote a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-Inside-Break-ins-Breakdowns-Don...

>Despite all that, she still had to manipulate the DNC party rules to get the nomination.

Are you being serious? She was the overwhelming choice in the primaries... Bernie lost by like 4 million votes. What are you talking about???

> Are you being serious?

Yes. Check out the DNC chairman's book on it.

You mean Donna Brazile's book? Can you be specific about what claims she made in this regard?

And not just PACs - there is 'deep spending', on propaganda media: Breitbart, IJR, NY Post, WSJ, and on foundations: Jud Watch (has spent $500M in last decade to attack Bill and Hillary), ALEC, SPN, Cit U (that Supreme Court decision was planned by billionaires).

There is a huge incentive for billionaires to spend money on propaganda, because they need votes for their pro-wealthy policies, which almost no voter would support without propaganda.

Or the billions in freely given media coverage.

Ironically, that was CNN, etc., giving Trump airtime in the mistaken belief that he'd hang himself on his own words. It wasn't due to media billionaires trying to get Trump elected.

That is the money spent in normal campaigning. If Trump spent money on CA, or if he received help from Putin's troll farms, do you really think those contributions would be accounted for in the official contributions/spending reports?

By the way, the same thing would be valid if H. Clinton used them. But for now we only have proof he did.

It's not just about money, but the appropriate application of money. Sure the Dems may have bought some likes and upvotes, while CA applied information warfare technique normally reserved for military activity.

From the Guardian:

>He had recently been exposed to a new discipline: “information operations”, which ranks alongside land, sea, air and space in the US military’s doctrine of the “five-dimensional battle space”.

This is a fatal vulnerability to the ideal of democracy. The only way to beat this game is to play it, and whoever can play it faster, smarter, and harder wins.

The only limitation is when these actions cross the line and cost you support by alienating your base, but I don't think that line exists for Trump.