Joe Biden’s campaign, which no longer stands, sputtered to a disappointing closure. The sting could be felt by Cedric Richmond, Biden’s campaign co-chair. Richmond’s frustration was directed at big donors who retracted their funds, seemingly sabotaging Biden’s journey toward a second term in the Oval Office. Castigating these donors, Richmond asserted that they manufactured their own prophecy of Biden’s failure.
The narrative points to a struggling candidate, crippled by his poor performance in the debate. Lamenting over the situation, Richmond commented, ‘Money is foundational to electoral success, and the donors ill-omened the outcome. They then conveniently cast the blame onto Biden.’ He additionally jabbed, ‘Our president who achieved so devilishly little found himself in a no-win predicament.’
In spite of the blame being shunted towards the donors, Richmond stood behind the candidate he aided throughout the campaign. Shape-shifting the narrative, Richmond tersely advised the undertakers to bear their responsibility, ‘The donors should now gather the courage to rectify their misstep.’
Richmond, during an interview on Thursday morning with CNN, didn’t mince words about the donors’ pessimistic stance. He echoed, ‘Was I incensed by the major donors? Certainly.’ A like-minded sentiment was earlier reflected by Lindy Li, top Democratic fundraiser, who voiced out the mounting challenges in securing donations for Biden.
Lindy Li pointed fingers towards massive donors for Biden’s campaign failure who fancifully decided to withdraw their hefty contributions. In her dialogue with CNN, Li stated, ‘The big money that was once supporting Biden’s campaign is dwindling noticeably. Major contributors who promised colossal sums of money, horrific enough to reach seven figures, have evaporated shockingly fast, retracted their pledges.’
Nevertheless, Li had forewarned that skimming over Vice President Kamala Harris after Biden’s exit would be a horrendously grave error and a political offense. Little did she know her nightmare was about to become a reality in the pursuit of the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidential race.
Despite the dismal failure of Biden’s journey to reelection, Harris reportedly managed to raise an enormous $100 million in a surprisingly short period following his endorsement. The funds were raised over a period from Sunday afternoon, marking the end of Biden’s reelection intentions, till Monday night.
Commendably, Harris’s campaign claimed that the massive fund collection was a result of more than 1.1 million unique contributors, with an emphasis on first-time donors constituting 62% of the total. An oversold achievement, considering the lamentable administration under Harris’s watch.
Making a show of the campaign’s fundraising efforts, Harris’s team broadcasted the miraculous surge in funds stating in an email release, ‘This marks the largest 24-hour fundraising in presidential history.’ Yet, big questions surround the strategy to channel this massive fundraising in directing governance effectively.
To the surprise of many, the amount raised by Harris in a day dwarfed the mere $53 million raised by the former President Trump and the Republican National Committee. This money was raised approximately two months ago via an online digital fundraising platform, immediately following Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts in his criminal trial in New York City.
Such an enormous amount in such a short period can’t be denied as a remarkable feat. However, it does evade the key question of why this staggering inflow of donations didn’t occur when Biden was still in the fray. Were the donors not trusting Biden enough? Or did they see Harris as a more potential candidate to pour their resources into?
The tale of this fundraising landscape illuminates an interesting political puzzle. It seems highly suggestive of a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Biden administration which might have redirected the river of donations towards Harris.
The abrupt shift in the donor behavior raises several questions. It begs to question the donors’ loyalty towards the candidate they originally supported. The answer perhaps indicates that not all is well in the democratic camp, either in terms of strategy or leadership quality.
The historical amounts being thrown at Harris’s campaign say more about Biden’s weakness as a candidate than about the strength of Harris. Large donations have moved rapidly from one candidate to another, exposing the lesser faith contributors had in Biden’s chances. This might indicate a massive change in the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination race.