Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.
I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.
This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever.
And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.
A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.