The Biden—now Harris—campaign committee raised $997.2 million and Trump’s campaign committee raised $388 million in total between Jan. 2023 and Oct. 16, 2024, the most recent date for which Federal Election Commission filings are available, ending with $118 million and $36.2 million in cash on hand, respectively.
So, err, Citizen’s United did not allow the billionaires – all that mere money as against actual voter wishes – to buy elecvtions then.
Appears it was always about the money. The Dems picked Kamala because, and only because, her name was on the Biden ticket so she could access the Biden campaign cash. This is pile o’ money theory. First create a pile of (someone else’s) money. Then find a pretext to spend it, in this case an election. Third, loot it. I have no idea of how much was spread around the various campaign managers nor how well the thing will be audited (Trump will get audited, of course), but even the crumbs from a billion bucks make it worth doing. Was KH even supposed to win? The mismanagement of the campaign make one suspect it didn’t matter.
Oh, half a billion on senate races too, same suspicion applies.
Pretty soon adds up to real money.
Interesting how the Reps are more efficient. If you presume spending campaign funds produces proportional results, funds not spent are wasted. Reps spend a higher proportion of funds donated. Amplified because we can soundly assume Reps get well over 100% more bang for the buck. The left’s normal CRaPUiaB effect?
Kamala Harris’ presidential election campaign ended the 2024 White House contest “at least $20 million in debt,” according to Politico’s California bureau chief Christopher Cadelago
NO REFUNDS!
Apparently that $116m has disappeared and the DNC fund is in deficit.
Hunter has probably snorted it all.
We’ve seen this before, where the losing candidate vastly outspends the winner.
Both in primaries (Jeb! Bush and Bloomberg) and in actual elections (can’t recall the name, but I think it was an American election for the House of Representatives – loser outspends by 10x).
The common factor is that the big spender thinks (or is persuaded to think) that more money = more votes. This may be true if there really isn’t anything to distinguish the candidates.
The upset seems to occur when the eventual winner has factors that make people actually vote for him, as opposed to “Well, I’ve heard this guy name more often recently than the other one”. Which is really all that ads buy you.
As well as the Harris campaign being in debt there’s also reports that part of that was from having to pay for the celebrity appearances at the rally’s
How do you spell “realignment”?
The Edison Research exit polls show a smaller percentage of the electorate, 31 percent, identifying as Democrats than in recent elections. In 2020, 37 percent of voters were Democrats. In 2016, that number was 36 percent. This year is the first time more voters described themselves as independents than Democrats, according to Edison Research.
Trump will likely be the first Republican to win the popular vote in two decades, and he appears to have run the table in the seven battleground states, despite being significantly outraised by Harris. It is easy to say her campaign failed.
They spent $1.4bn and it made them even less popular lol.
If true, there’s no pushback so far, I imagine the already low public opinion those celebs still enjoy will be damaged beyond repair.
As an example just imagine if near billionaire “the boss” Springsteen was found to have been paid before agreeing to strut his elderly stuff for a couple of hours in order, allegedly to save the country.
“They spent $1.4bn and it made them even less popular lol.”
When you are a bunch of c*nts, spending a fortune telling everyone all about you and your ideas might have that effect. Maybe if they’d spent nothing more people would have voted Democrat thinking they were the party they imagined them to be, rather than discovering what they really are and voting for the other lot.
Jim – that’s exactly what happened to Kamala, the more voters saw of her, the less they liked her. Clinton 2016 all over again. She doesn’t come across well in interviews, but I hear she came well across Willie Brown’s desk.
I think at this point in Western culture the celebrity endorsements were also a net vote loser. Nobody wants to be reminded that George Clooney and co. are smug cunts who sleep in silk pyjamas on top of piles of money:
A poll from YouGov shortly after Swift’s endorsement found that only 8% of voters would be “somewhat” or “much more” likely to vote for Harris – with a surprising 20% saying the endorsement actually made them less likely to vote for her.
Modern culture prefers the authentic or “authentic”. Trump driving a bin lorry with his name on it and a big cheesy grin on his face was perfect for the smartphone era. Very pro-like and share. Inviting some of the richest and stupidest people in America to reveal, for the 97th time, that they will endorse literally anybody or thing the Dems put up, while Kamala cackles beside them at the podium, was tone deaf and tryhard.
By surrounding herself with the likes of Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, all those weirdo Millennial acts I don’t know and don’t want to know about, Kamala made herself look like a rich, out of touch asshole in an election about the cost of living. Thus subconsciously amplifying Trump’s theme “Kamala is for them, Donald Trump is for you”. D’oh!
Also, young people are getting more right wing across the Western world:
As a whole, Kamala Harris won voters between the ages of 18 and 29 by six points. But preliminary exit polling indicates that Donald Trump opened up a 16-point gender gap between young men and young women: 56% of men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Trump while just 40% of their female peers did so.
Even more surprisingly, Trump managed to improve on his 2020 performance among young women, despite that gap. In 2020, 33% of young women voted for him.
The sun on the Trump Tower is summery warm,
But I reckon Taylor Swift pretty well sewed up the 7-14 y/o female vote for Kamala, Steve. Oh! Hang on… Maybe if she tries again in ’32 …