Staff ReportsKamala Harris’ latest campaign potential has gone up in flames, much like the budget she blew through during her hastily orchestrated bid for the presidency. After losing to Donald Trump, analysts began to express disbelief over the staggering amount of cash Harris set fire to—initial estimates of around $1 billion turned out to be laughably low. In reality, her team managed to obliterate approximately $1.5 billion in just 15 weeks, racking up weekly spending of about $100 million. It’s a wonder that, despite all that financial firepower, she somehow managed to lose each battleground state and the popular vote.
The New York Times reported on the dismal performance of Harris’ campaign, emphasizing the irony that she outspended her opponent yet still ended up as the first Democratic presidential candidate in two decades to concede the national popular vote while also letting all key states slip through her fingers. This sparked quite the head-scratching reaction from pundits and donors alike, who have raised urgent questions regarding where all that money went. After all, a staggering amount of spending should ideally equate to a few more staying voters and fewer cringe-worthy advertisements.
NYT: Hey, Where Exactly Did Kamala's $1.5 Billion Campaign War Chest Go? https://t.co/8FYQOMnJ5n
— Woodrow Williams (@Woodrow17165268) November 20, 2024
Digging deeper reveals a spending spree that would make even the most liberal spendthrifts blush. While the average American saves for a rainy day, Harris’ campaign was reportedly splurging on a mountain of expenses, including everything from pricey celebrities to extravagant town halls. Close to $600 million was allocated just for advertising. And in a classic example of throwing money at a problem, large sums went to wooing supporters via social media influencers, live-streaming events featuring big names, drone shows, and snazzy rallies. Who knew a good ol’ celebrity endorsement could run a campaign into the ground?
The penny-pinching aspects of this extravagant campaign are particularly noteworthy. A million-dollar payment to Oprah’s production company was supposed to make waves, only to end up costing much more than initially anticipated. And while big-name performers like Lady Gaga strutted their stuff in swing states, presumably on goodwill, the logistical support behind these flashy events ended up costing taxpayers and donors an eye-watering $10 million. All this, and they still couldn’t entice enough votes to stay off electoral life support.
Interestingly enough, the narrative that plagues Harris may parallel the ongoing internal conflicts within the Democratic party regarding funding sources. They often bemoan the influence of big money in politics, whining about right-wing donors while simultaneously pocketing huge sums from their own affluent supporters. With Republicans clearly having been outspent on the campaign trail, it seems Democratic fundraising isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. The hypocrisy remains thick in the air, as they work themselves up over “dark money” while stuffing their pockets with millions from big names and special interests.
With all their efforts and expenditures going to waste, it’s clear that Harris didn’t just fail because of a weak platform. Late-deciding voters recognized that her radical leftist agenda made her utterly unelectable. Many came to the conclusion that her supposed shift in stance was anything but genuine, concluding she couldn’t credibly disavow her past comments and extreme policy suggestions. In the end, Harris’ spending frenzy illuminated a critical flaw in her strategy: throwing money at issues can’t replace genuine voter support garnered through authentic, clear messaging. It turns out the Democrats aren’t just short on votes but also on viable strategies, even with a mountain of cash at their disposal.
