= new reply since forum marked as read
So the difference is actually much greater. Basically, Massachusetts saw tons of the NH ads, then twice the Mass ads, and still Bernie lost.
I'm not worried though. He has an endless supply of money from small donations!
Oh, yes, I know, Bullhorn Bill physically prevented 20,000 Bernie voters from voting in New Bedford (which Hillary won 55-44, and had about 12,000 votes total. 
)
What a triumph against all odds. 
You have to spend that much to defeat a machine as powerful as the one he is up against, especially with print, tv and digital media all in her pocket.
if it comforts you. 
... and oddly encouraging too.
How do you factor that into the cost of the campaign?
Yes, I know this is a snarky comment, but a former First Lady isn't going to need to introduce herself the same way a Senator would, or even a former "reality television celebrity" so the investment she made helping Bill get elected, plus her previous presidential campaigns should be taken into account as part of the "cost per vote" calculation.
Considering her own White House/fill-in-the-blank Faux news ongoing scandal coverage as also free advertisement, her media presence and brand is very well established. That doesn't make it good - just established.
Free coverage from Faux on Benghazi alone has probably been worth tens of millions of of dollars in name recognition alone.
Personally, I don't think we can afford another Clinton presidency, but I am adamantly opposed to immediate family of former Presidents running for the same office like some banana republic that pretends it isn't about the corruption and influence peddling.
But I am not a politician. Hillary is, and she just thinks differently.
