There is a paper out by Ferg et al. that explores funding structure of the 2016 presidential campaigns. It has important lessons for this thread, foremost being as a study of what not to do. Corporate democrats raised a billion and a half and lost. Don't do that no more.
some excerpts
--
"With respect to the Sanders campaign, these tables show something we are
confident is without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but
across virtually the whole of American history, waiving the dubious case of the legendary
1896 election: a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive
campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero."
"the 2016 eruptions
constitute a tipping point – a moment when the many pressures that had been squeezing
voters for a long time cumulated to a point where, quite literally, daily existence for many
had become close to unlivable. There is strong evidence that many citizens were
searching desperately for ways out of what looked (and in fact are) dead-end situations.
Many rebelled as they listened to commentators tell them that the US economy was really
doing better than it had in many years and that they should be celebrating America’s exit
from the Great Recession. They were unmoved by the chorus of conventional politicians
trying to sell old nostrums that by 2014 were plainly obsolete for them in their
communities. The reality of the Hunger Games was just too obvious and empty slogans
no longer appealed, they just disgusted or enraged. When two politicians broke through
the big money cartels that dominate both major parties, popular enthusiasm surged almost
overnight to seismic levels, shocking elites in both parties and flummoxing the entire
American establishment."
"For Clinton’s campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a
variant of the strategy Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another candidate
who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand coalition with most of
big business."
" ... with the possible exception of 1964 – the Clinton campaign looks like no other Democratic campaign since the New Deal. The Clinton campaign reached far into sectors and firms that have rarely supported any Democrat. The strong resemblance to the profile of the Romney campaign in 2012 in many (though
not all) particulars is striking ... "
--
read the whole thing
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-money-won-trump-the-white-househttps://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Ferg-Jorg-Chen-INET-Working-Paper-Industrial-Structure-and-Party-Competition-in-an-Age-of-Hunger-Games-8-Jan-2018.pdfsidd