Kamala Harris and her campaign are attempting to flood swing states with an onslaught of advertisements following Labor Day, grossly spending upwards of $170 million on prime-time TV alone, and adding a staggering $200 million for digital ads. The seemingly exorbitant expenditure of $370 million was disclosed by Quentin Fulks, a senior official of the Harris campaign, to The New York Times. The misplaced optimism within the Harris faction hints at their assumption of multiple ways she could win the election, a belief heavily rooted in the battleground states.
Fulks’ revelations came as Democrats congregated in Chicago for the grand showcasing of Harris at the Democratic National Convention. It appears their faith in Harris has only solidified further after this event, even after Joe Biden’s shaky performance in the previous election. There’s a marked increase in the spending as compared to Biden’s campaign in 2020—Harris campaign is set to splurge double in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, quadruple in Georgia, and a whopping six times more in Nevada.
The unbound spending in Nevada portrays anxieties in the Harris team, as the state has leaned Republican over the past four years. Even with the slight momentum gained by Harris after she stepped into Biden’s vacated position, recent polls show her trailing behind Trump by two points. It seems Harris’ ‘bounce’ isn’t as springy as the Democrats would have hoped.
Interestingly, the backing out of Biden from the race and Harris stepping in to fill his shoes, flanked by his endorsement, resulted in record fundraising for her, supposedly paving the way for a $350 million ad ploy. However, such critical decisions should not be driven by momentum or temporary surges in support, a lesson the Democratic party seems yet to learn.
The campaign’s decision to exhaust more of their budget on digital ads echoes their intent to align with what Fulks, Harris’ principal deputy campaign manager, referred to as a ‘modern campaign.’ This could be seen as an unproven gamble, and a potentially wasteful use of funds.
Their TV ads, scheduled to air during prime-time, includes airing during NFL and NBA games, are expected to target shows with large female viewerships. These are rather blatant tactics from Harris’ team, making it obvious they believe they can attract male voters – a demographic that, reportedly, was trending towards Trump when Biden was running.
However, rushing into booking ad slots early reeks of desperation from Harris’ part. It not only limits Trump’s campaign to secure matching ones but also shows a needless urgency on part of the Democratic hopeful to target sports broadcast and other traditionally male-dominated spaces.
While Harris’ campaign boasts about burning up $150 million on ads primarily in seven battleground states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—these ads were promptly put to air following her unanticipated entry into the race. Nevertheless, the ambition of the Harris TV buy extends far beyond reason, posing severe financial threats to the Democrats.
Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, has held back on such reckless spending, choosing to focus on rallies and relying on sizeable donations from outside groups. Such a wise and calculated strategy starkly contrasts with the Democrats’ approach of throwing money at the problem.
Adding to this, Trump’s campaign has tactically chosen to book daytime slots on Fox News, predicting likeminded audiences during non-primetime broadcasts. Of significance, they’re aiming to connect with Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley in the primaries and conservative-leaning independents.
When compared to Harris, Trump’s campaign has indeed fallen behind in fundraising. However, fundraisers are not the sole determinant of an election’s outcome, as Biden’s past missteps clearly elucidate. The Republicans understand this, relying more on large outside spending backed by PACs.
In conclusion, Kamala Harris’ campaign is manifesting a strange blend of jittery spending and misplaced optimism. Their audacious bid to outdo Biden’s election effort from 2020, and their pursuit of comparatively unusual voter demographics highlight an apparent strategic chaos. It seems the Democrats are yet to learn from past follies.
While Harris’ campaign slings ungodly amounts of funding towards captivating swing-state voters, one can only hope the citizens of America look beyond the aggressive advertising and examine the real issues. How the voters will assess these questionable tactics, especially given the Democrats’ history of financial missteps, remains to be seen.
In the final analysis, the Democrats, led by Harris, appear to be gleefully oblivious of the cliff they’re heading towards, a precipice sculpted by their own hasty decisions and reckless spending. As we have seen in the past, it isn’t just about the money; it’s about resonating with your voters and delivering on promises, lessons seemingly forgotten by the Democratic party.