Kamala Harris lost the election.
I can’t stop saying that.
But she lost after outspending Donald Trump by more than 2 to 1. In ancient times, like back in 2008, campaigns were won and lost in dollar signs. Yet Kamala threw cash at her campaign like a dingbat pouring water on a grease fire, and she still lost.
Is money no longer the currency of politics? Does money no longer buy and sell political offices? Are we in some alternate reality?
According to The Wall Street Journal, Kamala’s campaign had a war chest of $1.2B. She started this campaign fund with the money she stole from Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kamala’s people raised $1.0B and got $649M on top of that from “outside sources,” meaning other donors. Most of her money came in the form of large donations (58%) and about 42% came in the form of contributions of $200 or less. If this is confusing, it’s supposed to be. Nothing is more convoluted and opaque than American Presidential campaign financing. I think it’d be easier to find the Lost Ark of the Covenant than to accurately trace all inflows and outgo of campaign money from a modern American presidential race, but I’ve never actually tried to do either.
Kamala’s fundraising aligns with her background: she’s never held a job that wasn’t on the government payroll and she’s never run a business. She just spends other people’s money and she does so with the reckless abandon of Letitia James dreaming up phony lawfare charges for Trump.
Kamala “outraised” Trump by nearly 5 to 1 in the final few days of the campaign. In fact, Harris raised $97M in October, the same month Trump’s campaign raised only $16M. The very last days of Kamala’s ill-fated campaign reminded me of the desperate final days of Hitler as he retreated into the bunker in Berlin as World War II came to a close—they tried everything they could think of, but in the end, they lost the war. The only thing that makes me sad about that is that Hitler shot his dog before the very end.
As mentioned earlier, campaign financing is terribly complicated. There is some money that is officially donated to the campaign, but candidates can also get cash and in-kind donations from a host of other organizations. For instance, the Lincoln Project, an ostensibly and wrongly-labeled Republican group, gave money to Kamala’s campaign. (The Lincoln Project is to Conservative causes what Church’s Chicken is to Christianity.) Plus in addition to campaign money, the actual political party apparatus contributes a lot to campaigns, for instance, the Democrat National Committee raised $539M for Kamala and the Republican National Committee gave $390M to Trump.
Billions
A billion-dollar campaign may sound horrifying, but it is actually nothing new. Biden and Trump each raised that much in 2020. (I wonder if Democrat donors should ask for their campaign donations back, considering the election was rigged and Biden didn’t need campaign money to win.) Kamala’s feat was astounding, because she hit the billion-dollar mark in just 80 days. She only entered the race on July 21, 2024, although it seems to many of us she’s been running for President for the last 20 years.
The billionaire donor class has given money to both sides. It’s believed Trump has about 50 billionaires who donated to his campaign (and the biggest donor was not Elon Musk, who gave $120M, but Timothy Mellon, who contributed $150M). Kamala stole, I mean inherited, a lot of Biden’s billionaire buddies and allegedly has 76 “wealthy” donors backing her including Reed Hastings (Netflix), Melinda Gates, and Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn).
Several news outlets are reporting that Kamala’s campaign is now $20M in debt. It appears that Jen O’Malley Dillon, Kamala’s campaign manager, spent a very large proportion of Kamala’s loot on celebrities. When Bruce Springsteen, Cardi B, Beyonce, Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, and other reprehensible individuals came out to “support” Kamala, they weren’t doing it for free. They took home fat stacks for their sometimes brief appearances. Beyonce, for example, did not perform at a Kamala event although it was rumored she was going to sing. Instead, Kamala’s fans were treated to a speech that lasted all of four minutes. It takes me that long to say hello. Four minutes is nothing, unless you’re soft-boiling an egg.
In some cases, these ultra-short endorsements were a blessing. It was with great relief that I noticed Cardi B spoke at a Kamala event for a few minutes only. The former prostitute and robber (yes, Cardi B has a real rap sheet; she used to drug and rob her clients) did not prepare her own remarks or speak extemporaneously. She had to read remarks from a phone someone handed her. Then Kamala paid her. Wise use of money.
Kamala’s team also outspent Trump massively on political ads, none of which moved the needle. If you didn’t see a Kamala ad, it’s likely because you do not live in a swing state. Kamala put 80% of her ad money into swing states and didn’t win a single one. In Pennsylvania alone, Kamala spent $262M more than Trump on ads, yet lost anyway.
It’s the Americans, Stupid
Since it is against Democrat rules to every self-reflect or consider your own role in your misfortunes, the Kamala campaign and all Democrat officials are busy pointing fingers and blaming people. Social media has blamed George Clooney (he asked Biden to step down); Obama it is rumored is blaming Biden for not stepping down sooner; others are blaming Kamala for stepping in at all. The only one we can’t blame is Kamala because, well, identity politics, because no person of color can be criticized for anything ever, with the exception of Clarence Thomas.
But Democrats have found their scapegoats. They know who is to blame for this debacle.
It’s you. It’s me. It’s the Americans, stupid. Or maybe it’s the stupid Americans.
As Democrat leadership has told us, Americans are racist, xenophobic, misogynist, mean, cruel, human garbage, deplorable, irredeemable, Hitler, nazis, and fascists … (did I miss any? The list gets longer every day). The reason Kamala lost is that Americans are bad.
I’m not a campaign advisor, but that’s not a winning political strategy.
So since you don’t have to know anything to be a political pundit, here is the Ricochet Café analysis of where Kamala’s choo-choo went off the rails.
Good vibes, joy, youth, a snappy pantsuit, and Tiffany necklace may be fine things for a brunch date, but when people with jobs can’t afford to buy milk, eggs, and bread, style is not important. People wanted substance and Kamala never discussed policy, answered questions, or proposed anything interesting except things like “no tax on tips,” which she stole from Trump.
The American people who are suffering foreclosures and bankruptcies despite working hard jobs hate elitists and celebrities, which are just elitists with TV shows. Most of America’s voters do not own private jets or have the private cell number of Leonardo DiCaprio, and we are not that interested in those that do. Elections are not about showing off your big name friends, they’re about winning voters. You win voters to your cause when you provide sensible answers to their problems. Voters are not impressed by a bunch of stupidly overpaid actors and musicians. Bruce Springsteen has never, not even once, paid my light bill.
Kamala wasted her donations. I don’t know what Beyonce was paid for her four-minute speech, but there are online reports she got $10M for her endorsement. Reports say that Lizzo got $2M to appear in Detroit to boost Kamala. These numbers are likely not accurate—they’re not from credible sources—but I think it’s fair to say that Kamala paid top dollar for these celebrity cameos. That shows she’s not a good business woman. Those people were not worth it. In fact, they made her look sort of desperate.
Paid for celebrity endorsements are cheesy. Would Beyonce say she liked Kamala if Kamala hadn’t paid? I doubt it. And what about people who donated to Kamala’s campaign? Are they happy their hard-earned money went to line Beyonce’s pockets? Americans are literally losing cars, home, jobs… and if you donated to Kamala’s cause, all you did was make celebrities richer. It’s like that old song: There’s nothing surer, the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. (By the way, Democrats, that’s not a good campaign song.)
Celebrities are falling massively out of favor among American voters. If Kamala knew any ordinary people, she’d know that Americans are far more interested in hearing how she’d lower prices, fix the border, reduce fentanyl deaths, and improve our schools that watching her laugh hysterically in the presence of celebrities. Kamala was all style, no substance.
Celebrity and Substance
Trump doesn’t need celebrities. He is the celebrity. He’s the biggest, baddest celebrity anywhere in the world and even a Beyonce or a Harrison Ford or a Katy Perry are itty-bitty celebrities in his presence. The fact that Trump could be the celebrity at his own rallies while Kamala had to bribe people to appear with her speaks volumes. It’s like the old joke about the kid who was so disliked he had to put pork chops in his jacket to get the dog to play with him.
If Springsteen or Perry or Eminem or Beyonce or Taylor Swift or any of the rest of them was on stage with Trump, Trump would be the alpha celebrity.
But it’s even worse. Kamala’s use of celebrities as her crutch made Trump seem even more populist. Kamala needed to pay the cool kids to play with her. Trump was the cool kid, plus he was doing everything Kamala wasn’t. He talked about tariffs, trade deficits, dealing with Mexican cartels, reducing chronic disease, overhauling bureaucratic waste, lowering prices, managing the illegal migrant crisis, creating jobs, reducing taxes, and peeling away government regulations. That may not be as brat as hosting Lizzo at some event, but it’s what voters wanted to hear.
And consider Kamala’s crazy strategy of going on knucklehead podcasts like Call Her Daddy, while both Trump and Vance sat down for very long-form interviews with Joe Rogan. Kamala goes on The View, Trump talked to Dan Bongino, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Bloomberg, and others. Kamala just chit-chatted (and badly, I might add) whereas Trump answered real questions. Difficult questions. Meanwhile, Kamala went on RuPaul’s Drag Race while Trump sat down with Kristen Welker, a hostile mainstream media journalist of “Meet the Press” fame.
Besides just being a big vente-sized cup of froth, Kamala’s campaign actively avoided anything meaningful. It’s hard to imagine anyone being able to spend a billion on less than Kamala’s campaign did. You could build a new airport with the money Kamala frittered away trying to get Beyonce to stand next to her.
Trump also held more rallies and did more events than Kamala, who even after a couple of months of campaigning, looked like she was on the verge of emotional devastation and physical exhaustion.
Back to the Blame
But it’s not her fault. The fault is that the American people are too stupid to see how great she is. If this isn’t the last nail in the Democrat party coffin, I don’t know what is. And where is the Democrat bench? Who will rescue them for this hole they dug and then pushed themselves into?
Ten thousand year old Bernie Sanders?
Nancy these-are-my-real-eyebrows Pelosi?
Get-me-a-beer Liz Warren?
Pete Buttigieg is youthful but he’s almost more worthless than Kamala in terms of being a civil servant.
James Carville?
How about Bill and Hillary, now there’s a fun couple.
Or maybe you’re thinking Eric Swalwell can be their new hero or that Tim Walz has a political future apart from Kamala. Please. Liberal men are the worst.
Even the Squad is fading fast and newbie Squadette team member Jasmine Crockett gets on everyone’s nerves. In case you don’t know her, she’s a freshman Representative who just won a second term and she’s very fun to watch. She has a knack for getting headlines, too. She’s a young Black Representative from Texas, for which we Texan conservatives apologize. Crockett is educated and articulate—she may even be smart— but when she gets in the House of Representatives, she talks and gestures like Cardi B if Cardi B had Tourette Syndrome, took meth, and was on a trampoline and in a swearing contest. She’s particularly amusing to watch if you turn the sound down. But she’s not the future of Democrat party. In fact, she ran in her Texas district unopposed—only one lone no-name Libertarian ran against her. She was predicted to win by 99% since Libertarians usually only get a small number of votes in Texas. She didn’t even crest 85%--the Libertarian got over 15% of the vote! That’s almost shocking. A strong Republican in her district would blow her away.
More Signs and Wonders
Take this as another signpost to victory. The Democrat party is collapsing. Think of all of the people and institutions who worked so hard for the Democrats… and failed. We live in miraculous times. It’s like after a long dark winter, the sun came out, birds were signing, and we had the keys to the White House. And the Senate. And the House of Representatives. And the Supreme Court. Here are all of Kamala’s little helpers… all of whom failed her.
The billionaire class (Kamala raised more money and has more billionaires in her camp than Trump)
Hollywood and the entertainment industry
Mainstream media
Lefty podcasters
The Deep State
The Alphabet agencies
All the really bad late-night talk show hosts
The D.C. establishment
The Deep State
Academia, particularly the Poison Ivy League
Those delightful creatures on The View
The PRIDE movement
Bill, Hillary and their adopted son James Carville
Joe and Mika
Woke corporations
And all of the friends of Sean Combs
Please celebrate responsibly and remember: we outnumber them. They just haven’t quite realized it yet.
I'm curious. Kamala went over budget on her campaign -- waaaayyyy over. So, who pays that overage?
"According to The Wall Street Journal, Kamala’s campaign had a war chest of $1.2B. She started this campaign fund with the money she stole from Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kamala’s people raised $1.0B and got $649M on top of that from “outside sources,” meaning other donors."
These numbers overlook something really big ... the value to Kamala of positive media coverage of her and the value to Kamala of negative media coverage of Trump. Considering the amount of bias in the MainStream Media this election cycle, it's likely a staggering number.
First, according to a study by Media Research ( see https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2024/11/05/its-official-2024-campaign-news-coverage-was-worst-ever and https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harris-benefitted-from-unprecedented-bias-among-major-news-broadcasters-study-finds/), "Across ABC, CBS, and NBC, coverage of Kamala Harris was found to be 78 percent positive and 22 percent negative, according to the study conducted by the Media Research Center, a conservative-leaning media watchdog group. By contrast, Donald Trump received 15 percent positive coverage versus 85 percent negative, trailing Harris by 63 percent in terms of positive coverage." Other sources corroborated these numbers or numbers close to them.
Second, it wasn’t just the percent positive versus negative coverage that was in Harris' favor, it was the amount of coverage she got compared to Trump as well. For instance, Back in August this source (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-89-negative-for-trump/ ) noted that “Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump”.
Here's an interesting tool: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu. If you tell it to look at all coverage from Aug 1st to October 31st of the Kamala Harris Campaign and show the leaning of the articles (democRAT versus Republican) in various mainstream media, you find that the Huffington Post put out 672 articles and only 2% leaned Republican, while 90% leaned democRAT. CNN put out 489 articles … 4% leaned Republican while 74% leaned democRAT. The Washington Post put out 703 articles and 5% leaned Republican while 80% leaned demoncRAT. The New York Times had 636 articles with 4% leaning Republican and 78% leaning democRAT. The Associated Press put out 208 article with 1% leaning Republican and 71% leaning democRAT. Even the Wall Street Journal, with 204 articles, had 5% of them lean Republican while 57% leaned democRAT. Of course, there were a few outliers. Fox News put out 743 articles with 62 leaning Republican versus 21% leaning democRAT. Breitbart had 873 articles, with 67% leaning Republican and 25% leaning democRAT. Given that website ignores scads of left leaning media ... USAToday, Newsweek, Reuters, the LA Times, and on and on and on, suffice to say that the Kamala/Harris campaign were the beneficiaries of MANY, MANY, MANY times more positive MSM articles than negative ones.
Now note that the developers of the tool (which likely are left leaning university professors) didn't do the same analysis for the Trump Campaign, but I'm willing to bet that far more MSM articles again leaned democRAT rather than Republican in the reporting on him (in other words, they hurt Trump). And what’s that worth considering that most people (as opposed to people like us) probably developed their opinions of Harris and Trump from that unpaid MSM coverage of them, rather than from paid MSM ads? I would assert it was worth billions to the Harris campaign, since according to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-political-ad-spending-soar-2024-with-tv-media-biggest-winner-report-2024-01-11/) the cost of US political advertising on traditional media, most of which is TV, in 2024 was about $8.9 billion. That means the leftist MSM wasted billions of dollars themselves trying to get Kamala elected (GOOD). But maybe this is something that the FEC needs to look at very carefully in future elections. It's appears to be a form of political donation that the MSM is getting away with making that all others would not be allowed to make with consequences.