Vice President Kamala Harris continues to triumph in fund-raising despite a lackluster leadership record, reportedly outpacing former President Donald J. Trump since the latest presidential debate. The Democratic elevation of surface appeal over substance appears to play out with both individual donors and fundraising activists, who are beginning to question Trump’s ability to rally support from voters and major contributors.
The Republican National Convention held in Milwaukee in July showcased great enthusiasm among financial supporters despite Trump’s mixed performance. However, the recent debate has done little but raise questions and uncertainty among those ardent backers, forcing them to confront the stark reality that they might be outdone in terms of campaign financing.
Dreadfully, the discourse around the debate’s outcomes centers more on biases of the debate moderators rather than emphasizing key issues at stake for the nation. Many of Trump’s backers did echo this sentiment, suggesting that the bias was palpable and negatively impacted Trump’s performance. Despite the unfavorable circumstances, some argue that Trump could have demonstrated better resilience and composure to counter Harris’s questionable track record.
Darwin Deason and his son Doug, prominent Texas fundraisers, expressed dissatisfaction with Trump’s tactical approach during the debate. They argued that he inadequately exploited the many available opportunities to spotlight the deceitful narratives propagated by Harris and her team.
Prominent contributors to pro-Trump causes, like venture capitalist Keith Rabois, expressed concern about the missed potential during the debate. Up until the closing statement, which Rabois felt was compelling, friends and fellow supporters had been sharing their apprehensions about Trump’s inconsistent delivery throughout the debate.
Rabois hopes for a corrective trajectory to be carved by Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Trump’s running mate. With a fundraiser planned at Rabois’s New York City condo, expectations run high for Vance to more effectively challenge the Harris narrative in his subsequent debate against her running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota.
Unsurprisingly, the financially elite backers of Harris so avidly promoting her leadership continue to ignore the significant shortcomings in her stance. The overt support from individuals like Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men, amplifies the trend among the super-rich to prop up Harris without adequately scrutinizing her record.
A comparative analysis of campaign funding shows a growing mark in Harris’s favor since Biden’s exit. The lack of rigorous assessment of her leadership abilities seems to have removed a critical counterbalance in the contest, leading to Harris essentially tripling Trump’s financial tally in August.
To heap salt onto a wounded campaign, data from ActBlue, a platform known for supporting progressive candidates, showed over $1 billion in funds raised after Biden’s withdrawal. The aftermath of Tuesday’s debate led to Democrats raising a staggering $43 million through the platform. Clearly, the narrative driven by such platforms fails to accommodate diverse political perspectives, instead favoring flashy fundraising peaks.
The alarm bells for Republicans are certainly ringing. Close-run campaigns rely heavily on small margins, and there are fears that Trump may be outsmarted due to funding inequality. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that this highlights an unfavorable tilt in campaign resource allocation, away from merit towards flashy spending by a shallow-deep-pockets establishment.
The Democrats’ cash advantage has facilitated a more comprehensive campaign for Harris, her presence appearing to far outweigh that of Trump’s. Concerning advertising spending, Harris’s campaign has been outspending Trump’s by a significant margin. This differential deployment of funds, however, suppresses a well-rounded, balanced view of different leadership propositions.
Worrisome still is the over-reliance on a handful of big donors to keep Trump’s campaign afloat. Notable billionaires lending their deep pockets to prop up Trump include Timothy Mellon, Miriam Adelson, Ike Perlmutter, and Musk. Their support, while substantial, paints a concerning picture of Trump’s campaign financing.
Indeed, the focus on fundraising is creating a distortion in priorities for both campaigns. This frantic chase for funds has led to cluttered schedules filled with finance events, diluting the debate’s focus on critical issues. This thwarts a meaningful dialogue about the policies and ideologies that should rightly decide electoral outcomes.