3 ms·

just google kamala harris campaign fundraising vs trump. 2024 election just happened not too long ago. she got more money than trump and yet lose. money is not

just google kamala harris campaign fundraising vs trump. 2024 election just happened not too long ago. she got more money than trump and yet lose. money is not the only factor.

Chinjut 1y ago
The election where the billionaire prominently campaigned for by the richest megabillionaire in the world won proves that money plays little role in politics.
thejazzman 1y ago
elon poured a ton of money into strategic locations right at the end, such as running a fake lottery in PA. many attribute the outcome on the role he played. may not be the most money, but it's the most effective use of money. PA roads were littered with trump signs because of people being paid to litter our streets with them. for months. people are, sadly, very easily influenced. companies wouldn't pour so much into advertising, in general, if it didn't have such an effective influence
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  Reid Hoffman poured an equal amount of money thru Future Forward PAC on the Harris side.
digital_sawzall 1y ago
Kamala raised $1.65 billion compared to Trump's $1.1 billion [0]. Not like it was a massive difference. Especially because that does not take into account super pacs, like Musks $200million in Pennsylvania. [0] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-harris-and-musk-how-money-did-and-didnt-affect-the-election https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-har...
- tzs 1y ago
  Probably what the money was spent on should be taken into account too. Most campaigns stretch the truth a bit here and there, but from what I personally saw and from what I read from other states where the campaigning was more intense generally the Harris campaign did not stretch nearly as far as the Trump campaign. I'd expect that this let the Tump campaign get more out of a given amount of spending than the Harris campaign could.
iancmceachern 1y ago
Yeah but if you ask chatgpt: "Absolutely, money does have a measurable impact on political outcomes" https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-spend-money-on-11756141?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-s... https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp...
myrmidon 1y ago
Maybe, but Trump spent over half a billion on his 2024 campaign. Are you suggesting the outcome would have been unchanged had he spent a "sane" amount like $50M total? Because I don't think so. Furthermore, in a country with somewhat free media you would always expect populist candidates to outperform with a given budget, because their platform is much better aligned with media interest; mass media does not want boring budget plans or quaint reforms-- rage-bait sells way better and nets populists tons of "free" online presence.
guywithahat 1y ago
For fun I did a non-scientific analysis of presidential candidates a while back, and found funding raised wasn't statistically significant https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statistically-significant.html https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statist...

just google kamala harris campaign fundraising vs trump. 2024 election just happened not too long ago. she got more money than trump and yet lose. money is not the only factor.

Chinjut 1y ago

The election where the billionaire prominently campaigned for by the richest megabillionaire in the world won proves that money plays little role in politics.

thejazzman 1y ago

elon poured a ton of money into strategic locations right at the end, such as running a fake lottery in PA. many attribute the outcome on the role he played. may not be the most money, but it's the most effective use of money. PA roads were littered with trump signs because of people being paid to litter our streets with them. for months. people are, sadly, very easily influenced. companies wouldn't pour so much into advertising, in general, if it didn't have such an effective influence

prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Reid Hoffman poured an equal amount of money thru Future Forward PAC on the Harris side.

digital_sawzall 1y ago

Kamala raised $1.65 billion compared to Trump's $1.1 billion [0]. Not like it was a massive difference. Especially because that does not take into account super pacs, like Musks $200million in Pennsylvania. [0] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-harris-and-musk-how-money-did-and-didnt-affect-the-election https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-11-15/trump-har...

tzs 1y ago
Probably what the money was spent on should be taken into account too. Most campaigns stretch the truth a bit here and there, but from what I personally saw and from what I read from other states where the campaigning was more intense generally the Harris campaign did not stretch nearly as far as the Trump campaign. I'd expect that this let the Tump campaign get more out of a given amount of spending than the Harris campaign could.

iancmceachern 1y ago

Yeah but if you ask chatgpt: "Absolutely, money does have a measurable impact on political outcomes" https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-spend-money-on-11756141?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.investopedia.com/surprising-thing-billionaires-s... https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-sp...

myrmidon 1y ago

Maybe, but Trump spent over half a billion on his 2024 campaign. Are you suggesting the outcome would have been unchanged had he spent a "sane" amount like $50M total? Because I don't think so. Furthermore, in a country with somewhat free media you would always expect populist candidates to outperform with a given budget, because their platform is much better aligned with media interest; mass media does not want boring budget plans or quaint reforms-- rage-bait sells way better and nets populists tons of "free" online presence.

guywithahat 1y ago

For fun I did a non-scientific analysis of presidential candidates a while back, and found funding raised wasn't statistically significant https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statistically-significant.html https://thomashansen.xyz/blog/election-spending-isnt-statist...