Bloat: Harris Campaign Blew Through $1 Billion in 107 Days
November 08, 2024.png)
Key Takeaways
- Americans are disgusted at the Harris campaign’s spending, tying it to beliefs that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.
- Reports of the campaign ending with $20 million in debt, after fundraising $1 billion, lead voters to draw parallels with government overspending with no tangible results.
- Some contrast Trump’s promises to cut government spending with Harris’s runaway spending, expressing relief that Trump is the president-elect.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
12,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
2 Days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
Recent reports allege the Harris campaign spent the $1 billion dollars it fundraised, and after only 107 days, ended the campaign with a $20 million debt. This news elicits sharply negative voter reactions.
Reactions point to widespread perceptions of fiscal irresponsibility and elite detachment from American concerns. Voters express thankfulness that Harris lost, fearing such spending habits are indicative of Democratic tendencies with U.S. tax dollars.
Spender Versus Earner
Harris’s spending failures brighten the promises of fiscal conservatism by Trump.
- Financial Accountability: Trump supporters contrast his fiscal conservatism with Harris’s extravagant spending. Many align with his message of spending cuts, small government, and prioritizing taxpayer interests.
- Good for Trump: As the Harris budget deficit fuels perceptions of elitist excess, GOP and Independent voters call for Trump’s straightforward approach to budget efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
- Public and Private: Some point out that Trump’s success in the private sector earning money contrasts sharply with a career politician like Harris who is used to only spending.
Government Disgust
Across voter demographics, reactions indicate a strong sense of distrust and disgust at the Harris campaign’s fiscal management.
- Democrat Finances: Voters are in disbelief at the scale of spending by the Harris campaign, tying it to their criticism of overall government inefficiency.
- Wasting Money: Many see the campaign’s budget handling as emblematic of Democratic financial mismanagement. They say funds are wasted on ineffective initiatives that do not produce results—just like the Harris campaign.
- Incompetence: People criticize Harris’s campaign, linking it to longstanding frustrations with the Biden administration’s economic policy. Voters say budget issues reinforce views of Democratic leadership as fiscally irresponsible.
.png)
Disconnected from Voter Reality
The budget revelations come at a particularly tense economic time, with inflation and cost-of-living concerns dominating public sentiment.
- Elite Waste: Americans contrast their financial struggles with the extravagant political spending by elites for celebrity appearances and concerts. They say the billion-dollar fundraising was squandered, producing no benefits.
- Economic Realities: People view Harris’s spending as out-of-touch with economic reality and offensive to families struggling to make ends meet. They say the campaign prioritized campaign optics over reaching out to voters.
The anger and criticism are especially pronounced among working- and middle-class voters. The economic divide between political elites and regular Americans intensifies disgust as people express hope for budget accountability from the coming Trump administration.
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)