NYT: Harris has now raised $1B+ since entering the race

[wbrocks67]

Vice President Kamala Harris has raised more than $1 billion in less than three months as a presidential candidate, according to three people with knowledge of her fund-raising haul, a remarkable sum of money that has remade the race against former President Donald J. Trump.

The $1 billion haul, which encompasses money raised for her campaign and affiliated party committees, including the Democratic National Committee, is being spent on a wave of television and digital advertising and an expansive operation of offices and staff in the seven battleground states and beyond. The historic sum does not include money donated to allied super PACs.

The Harris campaign declined to comment. The campaign has yet to announce how much it raised in September, partly of out of concern that bragging about the gush of donations could diminish donor interest in the race’s final weeks, people briefed on the strategy said. The Harris campaign also remains concerned about the ability of billionaire-funded Republican super PACs to impact the race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/us/politics/harris-billion-dollar-fundraising.html

[Republican93]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

[DrScholl]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

Harris is dramatically underpolling. Republican women aren't going to answering polling or publicly state they are voting for her because they don't want to risk fighting with their MAGA husbands.

[KakyoinMemeHouse]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

She's still leading Trump pretty solidly. Safe to say having a lot of money, an efficient ground game, and a smart campaign strategy (e.g., not visiting California and Colorado) pays off.

[wbrocks67]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

[Agafin]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

[wbrocks67]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

And Biden outspent Trump in 2020, and we all know that went.

[VALibertarian]

Worth noting Trump has raised apparently 800 million plus this year so it's not like a huge disparity.

Now speaking non-politically for a second - it is absolutely disturbing how much money gets spent (and wasted imo) on elections in this country

[KakyoinMemeHouse]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

2024 is not 2016, no matter how much you want it to be.

[BlueSwan]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

Yeah, it really seems like money doesn’t really matter very much in this political climate.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Worth noting Trump has raised apparently 800 million plus this year so it's not like a huge disparity.

Now speaking non-politically for a second - it is absolutely disturbing how much money gets spent (and wasted imo) on elections in this country

You can thank SCOTUS for that. Of course when they decided Citizens United they were believing that their were doing a solid to their fellow Republicans, not that Democrats would dominate fundraising in a few years. 

[gf20202]

Worth noting Trump has raised apparently 800 million plus this year so it's not like a huge disparity.

800 million since January and 1 billion since July is a huge disparity. It may not be determinative but she likely has three times the amount of cash on hand.

[Crane]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

Yeah, he lost by 3 million votes.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Worth noting Trump has raised apparently 800 million plus this year so it's not like a huge disparity.

Now speaking non-politically for a second - it is absolutely disturbing how much money gets spent (and wasted imo) on elections in this country

That $800 million was spread out more than Harris' $1 billion, especially considering that she wasn't a candidate until July.

I do agree that it's questionable how much money matters in politics these days though. Maybe all it's good for is reflecting enthusiasm.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How much of Trump's 800 millions has gone to his lawyers for keeping him out of jail?

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

And Biden outspent Trump in 2020, and we all know that went.

Biden underperformed his polling?

[wbrocks67]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

And Biden outspent Trump in 2020, and we all know that went.

Biden underperformed his polling?

Yeah, because most of his money didn't go to ground game, which this year it is. Context is key

[ProgressiveModerate]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

This though is just another data point that makes me believe polls could very well be underestimating Harris, not Trump.

Money doesn't mean everything, but the disparity is so huge it's hard to imagine it's having little effect.

Also, a bunch of this money is going into field efforts/ground game, which we won't know the affects of until 11/5.

Clinton spent $1.2b to Trump's $600m. We all know how that went.

Logical fallacy. Having a spending advantage doesn't guarantee you'll win but you'd rather have more money than not.

[Republican93]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

Harris is dramatically underpolling. Republican women aren't going to answering polling or publicly state they are voting for her because they don't want to risk fighting with their MAGA husbands.

Is there any proof of this or are you making up nonsense to prove in your little brain Kamala has a chance? Regardless it’s been a 2-3 point race since she got in.

[Republican93]

$1bil and the race is still stagnant since she got in the race. $ doesn’t shift mindset.

She's still leading Trump pretty solidly. Safe to say having a lot of money, an efficient ground game, and a smart campaign strategy (e.g., not visiting California and Colorado) pays off.

Pretty solidly? It’s been a 2-3 point race since August nothing has changed with all the ‘good vibes’ and money she has raised. I do think ground game etc pays off in the end like you say.

[President Johnson]

Worth noting Trump has raised apparently 800 million plus this year so it's not like a huge disparity.

Now speaking non-politically for a second - it is absolutely disturbing how much money gets spent (and wasted imo) on elections in this country

But Harris inherited hundreds of millions from Biden in addition?

[Redban]

OP and other Dems repeatedly pushed fundraising figures this cycle. I think Kamala did outraise Trump, but like Hillary, the fundraising figures didn't correlate with the outcome

Going forward, I think we we should dismiss fundraising numbers or, at least, give them less importance

OP was kinda relentless on broadcasting Kamala's fundraising totals:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=607976.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=607302.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=604172.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=602325.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=601327.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=598147.0
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=585695.0

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think people should understand that having slightly less money than your opponent can actually be an advantage. Obviously you don't want to be like 500M behind them, but if you are behind in cash it forces you to spend much more strategically and squeeze value out of every dollar. Whereas if you have a 1.5B warchest you just start wastefully spending on everything ($100k on Call Me Daddy Set, $600k for the Las Vegas sphere, $1M for Oprah, etc.) it all adds up and you are just burning money on stuff that gives minimal impact. Meanwhile Trump went on Rogan and a bunch of other Manosphere podcasts for FREE and got earned media because he was behind her in cash. He was forced to find a way to make every cent count, while she was just inefficently wasting it because of the mindset differences of being behind vs having billions. Now obviously, you don't want to purposely avoid trying to rake in money as much as possible - Presidential campaigns are incredibly expensive. My point is though that once you get to like 700M that really is more than enough, and its not a bad thing to be 100 or 200M behind your opponent.

Hillary also outraised Trump by a lot and we saw what happened there. Similarly 2020, Biden did the same, but COVID messed up a lot of events but Trump closed the disparity by doing tons of rallies while Biden was in his basement.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think people should understand that having slightly less money than your opponent can actually be an advantage. Obviously you don't want to be like 500M behind them, but if you are behind in cash it forces you to spend much more strategically and squeeze value out of every dollar. Whereas if you have a 1.5B warchest you just start wastefully spending on everything ($100k on Call Me Daddy Set, $600k for the Las Vegas sphere, $1M for Oprah, etc.) it all adds up and you are just burning money on stuff that gives minimal impact. Meanwhile Trump went on Rogan and a bunch of other Manosphere podcasts for FREE and got earned media because he was behind her in cash. He was forced to find a way to make every cent count, while she was just inefficently wasting it because of the mindset differences of being behind vs having billions. Now obviously, you don't want to purposely avoid trying to rake in money as much as possible - Presidential campaigns are incredibly expensive. My point is though that once you get to like 700M that really is more than enough, and its not a bad thing to be 100 or 200M behind your opponent.

This definitely also happened with the Bloomberg 2020 and JEB! 2016 campaigns. Whereas Trump's campaign this time, for all its many flaws, actually had a good media strategy and made good use of their resources.

[wbrocks67]

There's nothing wrong with reporting fundraising totals. The fact that she raised that much goes to show there was a palpable enthusiasm. Just because you raise more money and you lose doesn't mean it didn't mean anything. Money is very important - it's not everything, but you could easily make the case that Harris could not get as far as she did without the money they raised. If she raised half of what she did, she could've done very much worse!