For the election campaign, Hillary Clinton has collected and allocated more money than Donald Trump: in general it is believed that this gives an advantage in the complex mechanism that governs the functioning of the "presidential machine" in the United States, but is it really so? Did having a "big budget" make a difference in the past? Many analysts believe so and note that (almost) all the winners of the US elections were also "budget winners", albeit slightly.
Barack Obama, for example, raised more money than Romney and McCain in 2012 and 2008, winning on both occasions. George W. Bush, tenant of the White House in 2004 and 2000, had raised more funds for his campaigns than his opponents, as did Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992.The budget of Democratic and Republican candidates since 1960. In black, the winners. | Statesman
If we were to consider only the statistics, which gives the candidates who succeed in putting in place the most powerful electoral machine (which goes "for money" …), Clinton should have the victory in his pocket. It seems that this is not the case - even if the games are not closed yet: is Trump about to reverse the trend? Will it be the first "loser in the electoral budget" at the White House after Jimmy Carter in 1976?