Jeb Bush paid $50 million per delegate

[IceSpear]

lol

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288455-bushs-three-delegates-at-republican-convention-were-50

[Redban]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

[Wells]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

[Redban]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

[LLR]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

Trump's entire policy on multiple issues is "I'm really rich" and HILLARY is relying on "money and status"!? What planet are you living on?

[Wells]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

I think Clinton is relying on votes to win, but that's just me. If people were to vote based on money and status, who do you think they would vote for?

[Redban]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

I think Clinton is relying on votes to win, but that's just me. If people were to vote based on money and status, who do you think they would vote for?

Did you even read my post? She is relying on money and status to a greater extent than Trump is because she has raised much more money and spent much more money.

Answer:

1). Has Hillary not raised significantly more money than Trump has?
2). Has Hillary not spent significantly more money than Trump has?
3). Has Trump not raised significantly less money than other candidates have in the past?

Assuming you answer yes to the above 3:

4). As Hillary has raised and spent significantly more money than Trump has, is she not relying on money and status to win this election?

[SillyAmerican]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

I think Clinton is relying on votes to win, but that's just me. If people were to vote based on money and status, who do you think they would vote for?

Did you even read my post? She is relying on money and status to a greater extent than Trump is because she has raised much more money and spent much more money.

Answer:

1). Has Hillary not raised significantly more money than Trump has?
2). Has Hillary not spent significantly more money than Trump has?
3). Has Trump not raised significantly less money than other candidates have in the past?

Assuming you answer yes to the above 3:

4). As Hillary has raised and spent significantly more money than Trump has, is she not relying on money and status to win this election?

Anyone paying any attention whatsoever understands that Hillary is the candidate with the money generating machine, and that to this point, it's been Hillary that's been spending the money like it's going out of style -- maybe not to the level of Jeb Bush, but she's raised and spent considerably more than Trump. It would be so very gratifying to have money not matter in the least in this presidential election. If the money spent by Jeb and Hillary ends up being shown not to have moved the needle one iota in their direction, perhaps future candidates will think long and hard about how (and why) they spend their money.

[skoods]

Technically he didn't pay anything. The rich morons that sent him their money did.

[Wells]

That he lost despite spending so much money is creditable. The best candidate, not the wealthiest, should always prevail in an election. Otherwise, we live in a country unfairly dominated by the elites, with some votes's having more influence than other votes.

Following that point, I correspondingly hope that Trump manages to hold his own against Hillary, as she's outspending him significantly; let's show that money and status mean little.

Yes. We can show that money and status mean little by putting Hillary in the White House this November.

This post is hilarious considering Trump is much richer than Clinton.

In terms of personal value, he has more net worth. In terms of campaign assets, Hillary has raised significantly more money and (as of now) spent significantly more money.

She, in other words, is the candidate relying on money and status to win (as Jeb Bush did); Trump is not.

I think Clinton is relying on votes to win, but that's just me. If people were to vote based on money and status, who do you think they would vote for?

Did you even read my post? She is relying on money and status to a greater extent than Trump is because she has raised much more money and spent much more money.

Answer:

1). Has Hillary not raised significantly more money than Trump has?
2). Has Hillary not spent significantly more money than Trump has?
3). Has Trump not raised significantly less money than other candidates have in the past?

Assuming you answer yes to the above 3:

4). As Hillary has raised and spent significantly more money than Trump has, is she not relying on money and status to win this election?

Hillary has raised more money than Trump has because Trump doesn't want to raise money .
Hillary has spent more money than Trump has simply because she has raised more money.
Trump as raised significantly less money than other candidates because he doesn't want to raise the money.

But Hillary Clinton is banking on the fact that most Americans will be turned off by Trump's hateful, disgusting, and demagogic rhetoric and vote for her as a sensible alternative. Money isn't her main reliance.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Anyone paying any attention whatsoever understands that Hillary is the candidate with the money generating machine, and that to this point, it's been Hillary that's been spending the money like it's going out of style -- maybe not to the level of Jeb Bush, but she's raised and spent considerably more than Trump. It would be so very gratifying to have money not matter in the least in this presidential election. If the money spent by Jeb and Hillary ends up being shown not to have moved the needle one iota in their direction, perhaps future candidates will think long and hard about how (and why) they spend their money.

You know fundraising unfortunately is a crucial part of campaigning.  People who self fund tend to lose elections.  There is just something about the exercise of going out and successfully fund raising that heralds success.  And if you follow elections self funders tend to spend a lot of their own money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topself.php

I think there are two dynamics at work here.  The first is Trump simply doesn't have the money to brute force his way to the White House.  If other "self funded" elections are any indication he could spend $2 billion of his own money and still lose.  Remember self funders typically have to spend way more than their donation funded opponents and they still lose... a lot.  I personally believe Trump doesn't even have that kind of money.  Even if by some miracle he did he is not that committed to anything outside of himself to take a gamble like that.  Even if someone said they would hand him the presidency on a silver platter for $2 billion he wouldn't take that deal.  He would rather have the $2 billion... so would I.

The other thing you are ignoring is Trump is a celebrity.  He even had a reality TV show with the word "celebrity" in the title.  I don't know about you but I would much rather have fundraising going on than people picking someone for president for the same reason they watch Keeping Up with The Kardashians... and a healthy dollop of bigotry.

And the final thing to consider is if you are semicharismatic person you will automatically get 45% of the votes cast.  Such is the nature of our two party country.

[Bigby]

Looks like it takes money AND votes, not just money, to win an election.