Did Trump outspend Rodham?
Potentially millions of Illegals voted. (potentially) http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-...
Here's one illegal that voted FIVE times. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Trial-Begins-in-Alleged-Ill...
AND the DHS supposedly under Obama administration tried to hack electronic voting polls for six states. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-hom...
EDIT: I only said supposedly on the third because SIX is the supposed number, but the Georgia one DID happen.
He gained insane amounts of "earned coverage" -- airtime obtained without paying for it. Over $2 billion.
A conservative media source: http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/11/trumps-earned-media-...
The NY Times if you prefer: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...
If anything the press's doubling down against him helped him because it also showed independents how in bed the press had become with one party.
Love him or hate he has a personality and he correctly realized that with a highly negative press it was best to portray them as the establishment as well.
The part I respect is he stomped on all three establishments which do their best to control Washington (RNC, DNC, and the Press).
https://medium.com/echelon-indicators/the-year-in-news-2016-...
Discussion:
https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6MMZjbxW...
This is an indirect measure, but shows major themes in discussion of news on Twitter, by Echelong Insights. Included, and pictured, is Twitter discussion of 17 major election-related stories. Three of these, the Electoral College, Fake News, and Steve Bannon, are principally or completely post election day phenomena, but the remaining 14 occur during the election cycle.
The two most dominant stories -- Wikileaks/Hacking (33.083m) and Clinton's Email (21.124m) stories dwarf the others (Deplorables, 5.989m being the runner-up). None of the Trump negative stories (Tapes, Taxes, Melania's speech, Paul Manafort, Trump University) come close, and several discussions which could have appeared quite notably don't: Donald Trump's live speech requesting that Russia hack his opponent's emails, or Clinton's claims that Trump would be Putin's puppet. These make absolutely no appearance here -- though whether that represents poor methodology or lack of actual impact isn't clear.
Keep in mind that Twitter isn't a public opinion survey, nor is it front-of-mind awareness of news. It's a proxy for both, and proxies can be useful or deceptive.
If there's an element here that's most powerful and useful, it's the relationship between leading and non-leading items: power relations are strong. Again, from first to third ranking here is a five-fold reduction in tweets. From first to 17th, a 25-fold reduction of interest and attention, at least on Twitter.
Who even knows the name of any independent candidate? They don't have advertising to tell us what they stand for or make us believe they're big enough to win.
