Romney and Obama each spent over a billion in 2012 (Romney spent nearly $400 million getting the nomination). It is absurd to believe that it will cost LESS this time around.
As far as using the media, it's absurd to think that Trump can use this in lieu of money. In 2008 the media went out of their way to deify Obama and he still spent nearly $800 million that go around. And keep in mind, the media WANTED Obama to win.
There are huge costs to the campaign beyond simple ad buys.
As for "no one of note" has questioned his ability to finance it, that's true. But, at the same time, NOBODY has suggested he has the cash on hand to actually do it.
While I understand your "equation" seems comprehensive enough for your purposes, it's just not any more convincing than global warming calculations.
Fine, show me how Trump can get elected by spending less than half of what Obama spent in 2008.
And that demonstration is simply not as convincing as you would like to think, if for no other reason than the popular belief rich people have more going on *sub rosa* than a balance sheet would indicate.
Really? What are these sub rosa conditions that Trump has? Trumps assets are far easier to identify than most billionaires, he has his name on everything. Or, are you suggesting that he lied on his financial disclosures and has more than $300 million in cash and securities?
All the campaign expenditure is worthless if it does not get mindshare for the candidate.
Trump has demonstrated an almost fiendish efficiency in dollars per mindshare because he has been putting out viral ideas. People are talking privately about Trump. That costs Trump $0.00.
And that’s really how US politics should have looked in the first place. Having to spend obscene sums to grab individual minds in isolation through conventional media is a testimony to apathy more than anything else.
Absurd? He's played the press like a Stradivarius, so far but it's "absurd" to think he will continue to do so. Riiiiight.