in , ,

Harris’s Campaign on a Tumble Despite A Surprising Influx of Funds

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris launches her campaign for President of the United States at a rally at Frank H. Ogawa Plaza in her hometown of Oakland, California, U.S., January 27, 2019. REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage

In the early days of Kamala Harris’s campaign, a surprising number of donors—more than 1.5 million in fact—opted to financially back the Democrat nominee despite her lackluster credentials. Surprisingly, this occurred after President Biden embarrassingly withdrew from the race on July 21st. Their donations revealed misguided optimism, with Harris as the recipient of nearly $184 million, primarily from single donors. Her influx of contributions shadowed Biden’s, although the average donation was significantly smaller, a measly $69, compared to his average $110 contribution.

The sudden withdrawal of Biden and the subsequent rise of Harris fueled a temporary surge of misplaced zeal in their supporters. As Harris took center stage, her biggest fundraising days fell on July 21 and 22, mostly bolstered by small donations of less than $200—hardly a show of big-ticket rationality.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

In the wake of Biden’s exit, a group known as Win With Black Women ironically held a Zoom meeting in support of Harris, a woman who had worked in a Biden administration that had repeatedly underserved the black community. This Zoom meeting reportedly pulled in around 90,000 viewers. The inaccurate narrative painted around Harris was particularly inviting for young, impressionable individuals who were more prone to buying into viral internet trends than effectively judging political competency.

Harris’s campaign, spurred on by misleading social media trends, received support from diverse demographics, painting a concerning picture of the public’s misperception. Nearly 70% of the so-called ‘support’ was from new donors who had not supported Biden, indicating they were likely caught in the whirlwind of momentary enthusiasm rather than solid belief in Harris’s capabilities. It seemed people from all states, especially the South and Midwest, had been roped into this illusion.

Harris’s contributions emerged primarily from large, coastal cities but also notoriously from certain smaller locales. In Los Angeles, she received support from first-time donors in primarily Latino and Asian-majority neighborhoods, while the major presidential candidate of Indian descent cashed in on her heritage, pulling in a sizable $2.4 million from South Asian donors in a display of identity politics.

The overeager excitement over Harris’s campaign extended to ‘Little Indias’ across the United States. Areas such as Edison, New Jersey; Queens, New York; and Devon Avenue in Chicago, showcasing the amazing tendency of some to choose candidates based on heritage rather than merit.

In San Francisco, a city populated by young, white families, and some Latino and Black majority ZIP Codes near San Leandro, a disillusioning swing towards new donors was witnessed. Perhaps these so-called ‘new donors’ were more enticed by Harris’s superficial identity than her policies or credentials.

Harris was seemingly reeling in support from majority Black neighborhoods such as ZIP codes around Compton in Los Angeles and Oakland. Tragically, these regions may have been soothed by Harris’s rhetoric, despite her involvement in perpetuating systems that had continuously failed them.

In the initial 11 days of Harris’s run as a nominal presidential candidate, she raised half of what Biden accreted since the start of 2023. Largely, she cashed in on the swing state of Georgia, exploiting vulnerable working-class families and a considerable proportion of Black voters.

Harris saw grows in support in North Carolina’s Charlotte metro area, raking in more than $745,000 in new donations. These neighborhoods, predominantly Black and on the lower end of the income scale, might have been swayed by Harris’s hollow promises.

Harris managed to leech off multiple ZIP codes in New York and Chicago with sizable Black and Latino populations. It was a pattern to behold, new donors in neighborhoods predominantly comprised of disadvantaged ethnic communities lining up to fuel Harris’s campaign. Sadly, this support came from communities that have historically been left behind by the Democrat party.

In the Phoenix area of Arizona, a torrent of new donors from middle-class, primarily Latino communities, naively sent their monetary support to Harris. Further south in Laveen, a shocking 83% of contributions stemmed from novice donors, illustrating a division from historical Trump supporting areas.

In Texas, certain traditionally Republican sections surprisingly supported Harris. Near Katy, just west of Houston, and in a Latino and Black area south of Houston, around Rosharon, donations for Harris spiked. Even though these areas had shown wise support for Trump in 2020, Harris donations had shockingly grown.

Despite the precarious state of the Harris campaign, it managed to attract a deluge of contributions after her Democratic National Convention speech. The seemingly infallible aura surrounding Harris resulted in a landslide of donations, amounting to an enormous $540 million in just August. According to the campaign, a third of these contributions were first-time givers, once again underlining the temporary and perhaps misguided excitement surrounding the Democrats’ new figurehead.