Staff Reports
In a shocking twist that would make any political strategist recoil, Vice President Kamala Harris managed to pull in over $1 billion in campaign donations leading up to the 2024 election. While many on the Left might see this as a sign of popularity, the reality is far more grim. Harris racked up this dizzying sum in just three months, but it turned out to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it came time for the votes to be counted. As the dust settled post-election, Donald Trump emerged victorious, becoming only the second former president to snag a nonconsecutive term, all while spending a fraction of what Harris poured into her campaign.
The enormity of Harris’s fundraising bonanza stands in stark contrast to her actual electoral performance. The Democrats who pushed octogenarian President Biden to hand over the reins are now left conducting internal investigations into why their prized candidate crashed and burned, though the answer seems as clear as the sky on a sunny day. Trump’s campaign raised and spent significantly less, yet somehow managed to resonate with voters in key battleground states. Harris’s money may have flowed like water, but voters – apparently not impressed by celebrity endorsements and flash – were not looking for style over substance.
She actually “plowed through” more and is now owes 20M!https://t.co/Avyd6sfS9A
— MH (@twgurl54) November 8, 2024
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, and a stalwart friend of Trump, hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that no amount of cash could mask the reality of rising prices and economic woes leaving Americans with a sour taste in their mouths. Voters were not fooled by Harris’s shiny ads and a star-studded lineup of musicians rallying in her corner; they were living paycheck to paycheck and could smell a loser from a mile away.
Despite Harris’s campaign spending roughly $654 million on advertising alone, Trump’s $378 million felt a lot more relatable to the average American. In a time where money seems like it can buy everything, Harris’s campaign was the living proof of the idea that money can’t necessarily sway public opinion in favor of someone who has been part of an administration widely viewed as failing. The billions spent didn’t help Harris connect with an electorate that felt disconnected from her fancy consultant-filled circus and its constant barrage of ads.
The Harris campaign’s financial choices reveal more flaws than a House of Cards episode. The campaign’s payroll alone ran into the $56 million range, as Harris employed a swarm of consultants to blend her digital outreach with celebrity appearances. Let’s not forget the $1 million paid to Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions or the $15 million required to organize glitzy event productions featuring pop stars. In stark contrast, the Trump campaign still successfully utilized a lean operation, engaging directly with voters rather than relying on a parade of influencers and elaborate showbiz gimmicks to mask a lackluster message.
As Democrats sift through the rubble of their unexpected defeat, Harris’s high-dollar spending spree will become a cautionary tale of what happens when a campaign weighs itself down with extravagant expenses instead of focusing on the concerns of the average American family. In the end, this campaign cycle proved that connecting with voters is always more valuable than rolling in money, especially when that money is tied to a candidate who struggled to identify what real Americans cared about.
