It’s not money that beat Hillary

While Donald Trump’s victory last month came as a shock to nearly everyone, the reaction to his elevation to presidentelect has been anything but unpredictable. Any time Republicans win national elections, liberals select from a variety pack of prepackaged excuses absolving them from electoral disaster.

The ingredients of this bouillabaisse of self-delusion are well known. They accuse Republicans of vote suppression. They cry that Republicans won through subterfuge, tricking voters with “fake news.” They whine about “gerrymandering,” even when an entire state like Wisconsin turns fire engine red. They wail that the election was “bought” with special interest money supplied by big business.

If faith is belief without evidence, then the latter talking point is the Vatican City of leftism. Any progressive rant about Republican success inevitably cites the pervasive influence of money in politics; despite their prodigious wealth, the Koch brothers continue to live rent-free in the liberal conscious.

But this past campaign was a rough one for the “money buys elections” crowd. On his way to the presidency, Donald Trump spent $238.9 million through mid-October — slightly more than half the $450.6 million spent by Hillary Clinton during the same time period. In 2012, both presidential candidates topped $1 billion in campaign spending; but this year, Trump had only raised 61% as much as Mitt Romney had raised at a similar point in 2012.

Perhaps this was why many on the left are still despondent over Clinton’s stunning loss. If one believes spending truly equates to votes, Clinton should have cruised to the presidency given her large cash advantage.

But as election after election proves, spending is far

from a determining factor. No amount of television ads are going to convince a consumer to go to Arby’s and buy a rat sandwich, just as no sum of money can compel voters to support a candidate they simply don’t like.

This election season provided bright examples of this phenomenon. For instance, if there were a direct line between spending and votes, Jeb Bush would be imploring attendees to “please clap” at his inauguration in January. Bush raised more than $130 million through his Right to Rise Super PAC and his campaign and dropped out well before candidates who had raised a fraction of that amount.

With independent money included, Clinton had raised about $1.3 billion to Trump’s $795 million through mid-October. Trump, however, was able to overcome his cash disadvantage through other means. Just as Barack Obama appealed to voters through his cool persona and eloquence, Trump was able to connect with voters with punishing rhetoric and bombast.

For months, Trump owned the airwaves, with news organizations cutting away to show his full, unedited speeches. His Twitter feed alone served as a New Deal-style jobs program for opinion writers and factcheckers. Trump was able to pull off some miraculous media jujutsu; while the media notoriously favors Democrats, he was able to use both television and newspapers to dominate the news and make Hillary Clinton seem like an afterthought. Trump didn’t need to spend money on television ads — he was a hit piece in human form.

Despite his obvious flaws, Trump laid the blueprint for running a successful campaign on the cheap. He was the Kansas City Royals of the presidential election — winning it all despite a paltry payroll. In victory, Trump proved that voters are far more complicated than we give them credit for. Instead of being solely influenced by television ads, voters take into account their own situations. The national mood matters. The candidates matter. Message matters. All these things are what wins or loses campaigns, and Trump found a way to manipulate public perception while being outspent. His brand of campaign “Moneyball” should be studied for generations.

Nonetheless, progressives still perceive spending to be their primary adversary, as if Hillary Clinton’s campaign had to rent out her house in Chappaqua on AirBnB to pay for her yard signs. Consequently, a cornerstone of modern Democratic promises is to change the First Amendment to block campaign spending by third parties during elections.

In fact, overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision might be the biggest special interest benefit Hillary Clinton’s third-party benefactors could ask for. It would save them from lighting their money on fire backing a candidate whose lack of appeal proved mightier than the dollar.