Hacker News Reader

Comment by anilshanbhag | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe the numbers. Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. She had the most sophisticated ops (including Groundwork (Eric Schmidt-backed startup)). How could Clinton campaign have spent half the other when it was their area of competence ?

View on HN

The most critical thing you need to consider when evaluating talent is value over replacement.[0] While Hillary Clinton certainly had fantastic credentials (Secretary of State, Senator) her track record for accomplishments[1] while in those positions is IMO indistinguishable from a fictitious replacement level politician. She was the presumptive nominee in 2008 and lost, but you could chalk that up to Barack Obama being highly competent. There isn't much proof that she was an extraordinary politician, in fact there is a large body of evidence to the contrary.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments...

She outspent Obama too early on.

Trump is a guy who does whatever he can to get attention. Given the pathetic state of the GOP slate and the less than inspirational Hillary campaign... people just needed a little push.

By pathetic, do you mean cleaning house? Last I checked, winning the presidency with Ohio or Pennsylvania to spare isn't pathetic. The old GOP is begging to lose the house and senate. Having control without a president playing ball exposed them way too much. Neither will happen, but it's instructive to watch Ryan's PAC fund DEM's.

Consider McCain. Voted how many times on a full repeal of the "Affordable Care Act" and then when the exact bill had a chance of passing?... Ryan... Graham... McConnel... same party.

Trump exists partially because the parade of candidates in the primaries was really... not good. For all of his faults, Trump isn't a plastic person.

There's a reason why Trump was seen as a breath of fresh air to many, and a reason why the Russians saw an opportunity in him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848

Clinton outspent Trump over the entire campaign. Clinton spent $1.18 billion, where Trump spent $617 million.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

So Clinton outspent Trump by nearly double in the entire election, but according to the article, it was the opposite when regarding Facebook spending.

Clinton may spent most money on traditional media channels and wasted her money as described in the article.

I'm convinced 99% of T_D users who spent 12 months posting Pepe memes were actual people inspired by a paid 1%. You can probably save a lot of money if so many will "work" for free.

Your misunderstanding guarantees you will make bad predictions. There is even a place for US citizens to bet money on it; predictit. Re-stating you statement means a 1% of frog posts wins elections. Why? You really don't know. By your logic you should be able to use it though. All JB needs is the right frog...

I would agree with you if Trump weren't such a leftfield candidate. There were plenty of other much safer investments establishment Republicans that would give the 1% a return on their investment than Trump. No one believed he would win at every stage of the game.

From the article, "But Trump’s FB campaigns were more complex than Clinton’s and better leveraged Facebook’s ability to optimize for outcomes."

Also, "The data scientist says 84 percent of Trump’s budget asked people on Facebook to take an action, like donating, compared with 56 percent of Clinton’s."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com