In addition, she also won 3 million more votes and still lost.

Seems a little bit more relevant here.

the game wasn't played to win the popular vote. if the rules of the game are different, the game is played differently.

3m votes out of XXXm is not much to show for 2x spending. Secondly, both candidates spent their efforts where things were tight, not where the most voters were. Hillary's 2x spending advantage failed there, where it counted.

Of course, this is true. My comment was extremely simplistic.

The power of corporations over people is far more subtle and far reaching than all that, and I'm not really referencing any 'conspiracy' junk.

Briefly, I think it fundamentally comes down to a fundamentally pro-company atmosphere that exists in the United States. This has been created after many decades of typically subtle and legal manipulations.

They weren't trying to be evil; they were just trying to maximize shareholder value.

1. Corporations typically "invest" in multiple candidates - I wouldn't be surprised if they funded both Clinton and Trump. 2. Amazon owns a major publication that directly influences voters. 3. Amazon employs lobbyists who actively work to change laws that will help Amazon's bottom line. 4. Amazon and other tech giants absolutely have the power and profit incentive to heavily influence voters for or against particular candidates. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we ended up with two candidates in the general election who are extremely friendly to large corporations.

Amazon elects politicians in a more substantial way than voters do.

Just because Hillary’s campaign contributions were not as effective at persuading voters enough to win a electoral college majority does not mean that Trump (or other politicians) are not influenced by those contributions. It seems clear to me that businesses are getting a return in investment for the money they are spending in politics, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

> Just because Hillary’s campaign contributions were not as effective at persuading voters enough to win a electoral college majority

It means that money is not buying elections. The voters still have to be pleased with their choice, and the money isn't flowing their way.