Mother's Milk? Clinton spends twice as much as Trump in losing effort

Hillary Clinton and her Super Pacs raised and spent more money in 2012 than any other candidate in American political history and still lost the race, according to records released this weekend.

Clinton blew by Obama's 2012 total of $1.12 billion to raise $1.2 billion.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and his Super Pacs raised $600 million - about half of what Clinton raised. 

Washington Times:

The latest Federal Elections Commission figures back Mr. Trump’s assertion six months ago that there was no need for him to amass at least $1 billion to run a successful race against the former Secretary of State, given the former reality television star’s ability to draw free media.

“There’s no reason to raise that,” Mr. Trump told Bloomberg in June. “I just don’t think I need nearly as much money as other people need because I get so much publicity. I get so many invitations to be on television. I get so many interviews, if I want them.”

Mr. Trump estimated at one point that he would need to spend $100 million of his own money, but wound up contributing $66 million, about a third less than anticipated.

While both campaigns went on a spending spree in the final stretch, Mrs. Clinton was left with only $839,000 on hand by the end of the election, while Mr. Trump still had $7.6 million.

Mrs. Clinton wound up blowing past the spending record set in 2012 by President Obama, whose campaign and Democrat committees spent $1.12 billion, slightly more than the $1.02 billion spent by Republican Mitt Romney and GOP groups.

The Trump campaign committee alone spent $328.4 million through late November as opposed to $563.9 million by the Clinton camp, according to the FEC.

In other words, Mr. Trump’s 306 electoral votes cost about $1.05 million a piece, while each of Mrs. Clinton’s 232 electoral votes cost $2.43 million, an NBC News analysis found.

So has the "Mother's Milk" of politics gone sour? While it's tempting to make that claim, the problem is that Clinton could have raised even more money and still lost because she was the most toxic presidential candidate in US history. You can raise all the money in the world, run thousands of ads, hire an army to beat the bushes for voters. But if your candidate is a putz, you will probably lose.

As a stand alone factor in the race, you could probably make the argument that Clinton would have lost even bigger if she hadn't raised the $1.2 billion. In the end, money was a major factor only in highlighting the utter futility of the candidate and her ideas.

 

Hillary Clinton and her Super Pacs raised and spent more money in 2012 than any other candidate in American political history and still lost the race, according to records released this weekend.

Clinton blew by Obama's 2012 total of $1.12 billion to raise $1.2 billion.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and his Super Pacs raised $600 million - about half of what Clinton raised. 

Washington Times:

The latest Federal Elections Commission figures back Mr. Trump’s assertion six months ago that there was no need for him to amass at least $1 billion to run a successful race against the former Secretary of State, given the former reality television star’s ability to draw free media.

“There’s no reason to raise that,” Mr. Trump told Bloomberg in June. “I just don’t think I need nearly as much money as other people need because I get so much publicity. I get so many invitations to be on television. I get so many interviews, if I want them.”

Mr. Trump estimated at one point that he would need to spend $100 million of his own money, but wound up contributing $66 million, about a third less than anticipated.

While both campaigns went on a spending spree in the final stretch, Mrs. Clinton was left with only $839,000 on hand by the end of the election, while Mr. Trump still had $7.6 million.

Mrs. Clinton wound up blowing past the spending record set in 2012 by President Obama, whose campaign and Democrat committees spent $1.12 billion, slightly more than the $1.02 billion spent by Republican Mitt Romney and GOP groups.

The Trump campaign committee alone spent $328.4 million through late November as opposed to $563.9 million by the Clinton camp, according to the FEC.

In other words, Mr. Trump’s 306 electoral votes cost about $1.05 million a piece, while each of Mrs. Clinton’s 232 electoral votes cost $2.43 million, an NBC News analysis found.

So has the "Mother's Milk" of politics gone sour? While it's tempting to make that claim, the problem is that Clinton could have raised even more money and still lost because she was the most toxic presidential candidate in US history. You can raise all the money in the world, run thousands of ads, hire an army to beat the bushes for voters. But if your candidate is a putz, you will probably lose.

As a stand alone factor in the race, you could probably make the argument that Clinton would have lost even bigger if she hadn't raised the $1.2 billion. In the end, money was a major factor only in highlighting the utter futility of the candidate and her ideas.

 

RECENT VIDEOS