Paying is necessary, but not sufficient, to win.

In her case, the campaign started too late. And despite being a household name, her policies were less known.

> Paying is necessary

Donald Trump would like a word.

Do I understand correctly that you're saying Donald Trump got lots of support from social networks and TV for free?

And Hillary Clinton.

Thinking you can change strongly held opinions with advertising is wrong.

I imagine the devil is in the details though, no? Ie it definitely changes at least one, right? So the real question is cost vs voted gained.

I looked this up as I doubted it.

If it was about money, Trump wouldn’t have had a chance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...

These are only about direct donations. Most money in politics nowadays is this so-called "dark money". Most billionaires I can think of supported Trump: Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison... Lobbies generally favor the Right because they are more easily corrupted (Trump 2x his personal fortune in less than a year of presidency). Right-wing influencers got massive grants from think tanks, Russia and other conservative sources, etc.

From what I can find for the 2024 presidential election:

Trump/Republicans spent a total of $2.13 billion vs. $3.37 billion by Harris/Dems. This is inclusive of "dark money".

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-tr...

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-tr...

[3] https://www.campaignnow.com/blog/dems-outspent-gop-2-to-1

[4] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark...

[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/...