How does that follow? A charismatic demagogue won against a singularly uninspiring lifetime politician, despite receiving fewer votes (because Electoral College). Money isn't the only factor, but it's still one of the largest.

"One of the largest" is different from "the deciding factor"; let's keep those goalposts pinned down please.

I’ll agree it didn’t matter in the most recent presidential cycle, though I would argue the real damage is done further down the ballot in the house and senate. People just don’t do as much homework on those candidates and are more responsive to messaging.

Money is a deciding factor in shaping elections - the narratives, the length of the election season, what candidates decide to run, how policy choices look. By the time the general presidential election happens, 90% of the impact is already baked in.

Campaign spending is not the whole picture. How many outside interests contributed otherwise to HC and DT in the last election?

You can start an ad campaign against a candidate you don't like without that showing up in the campaign fund.

HC factically started her campaign right after the first Obama's term, had support of party leadership, and therefore major party donors, and having sympathies of the press. DT started his campaign a year before elections, was rudiculed by mainstream Republican opinion-makers until May 2016, was (and is) in a conflict with major donors (like Koch brothers), and had/has generally unfriendly relations with press. So unless you imply some very big conspiracy theory I don't see how he could have even a chance to outspent HC.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that campaign finances are only a partial picture.

I also think HC had much more backing.

That's one exception to the rule. A big one, being the most important election that happens every 4 year, but that doesn't negate the importance of money in campaigning.

Beto O’Rourke outspent Ted Cruz $79MM to $45MM. Another exception?

There are always exceptions that prove the rule — Texas is in a weird place in that the shifting demographics (higher birthdate among non-whites) will eventually flip the state blue in the late 2020s, so I think the DNC was optimistic they could steal a senate seat on a wave of popular support.

One could also argue the DNC was investing in raising the national profile of one of its rising stars in advance of the 2020 campaign even knowing his chances were slim.

From what I have learned it is the money you don't hear about that matters the most.

Trump got billions of free media exposure https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode.... He didn't have to outspend Hillary with that kind of advantage.

>Money is not the deciding factor in American elections. Hillary Clinton spent twice as much as Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

I understood the comment to reference the special interest money behind elections not so much the total amount of money. Corporations vs. individuals.