Well the story to me is basically: money plays a gigantic factor and allows you to win elections, because it gives you exposure.

You can beat that moneyed system if you happen to be an eccentric billionaire, who happens to have been a household name for decades, who will say anything, racist, misogynistic, hateful, lies and false promises, to get the exposure to get elected despite not paying for it.

Just about anything else and you need money to get exposure, get on television, get yourself in the spotlight. He just didn't happen to have needed money to get exposure, but that's an exception, in exceptional circumstances, and limits potential candidates to those with exceptional media/wealth backgrounds. That's not a model that makes sense to sustain.

Clinton campaign was the most expensive ever and she still lost[0]

And there is a reason for that: "Hillary Clinton was the candidate of the military industrial complex and international finance capital."[1]

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16 [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/09/the-rejection-of-wall...

I disagree. I would argue that his campaign proved otherwise.

Promising to never accept special interest money, only to go on to actively seek out and take it a mere months later, proves that it's necessary to win in an election.

He has demonstrated something dangerous. It is dangerous to dispense bigotry from the highest office in the land. It has consequences. It gets people hurt and killed. The consequences are foreseeable.

You're right - he demonstrated one can flaunt bigotry and appeal to our basest emotions to get equal media attention wothout paying for it.

So in my opinion he hasn't demonstrated anything useful.

Adding to your point, he was also hugely successful in the primary despite being massively outspent by Jeb.