The ongoing discussions and criticisms within the Democratic Party regarding Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign are intensifying. Numerous tell-all books and exposés are anticipated, potentially providing financial opportunities for lower-level staffers who currently find themselves sidelined in the political arena. These individuals continue to share insights with the mainstream media, revealing the internal conflicts and disputes among Democratic leaders, the Biden administration, and the Harris campaign. A pressing question arises: how can a campaign raise one billion dollars yet face a significant defeat in the presidential race, accumulating 20 million in debt in the process?
In an exclusive report, staffers from the Harris campaign attribute the campaign's failures primarily to the Biden administration. They argue that while they required a high-caliber candidate and support system, they were instead left with a subpar alternative.
VETERANS DAY SALE!
Concerns regarding the financial status of the campaign had been evident since September, according to one Democratic source. Another individual noted that the campaign fell short of its fundraising targets that month, following a decline in contributions during August and a less-than-expected financial boost from the convention. The second source indicated that Harris has started to inquire about the allocation of funds.
Some attributed the significant financial shortfall to television reservations and consultant contracts made while President Joe Biden was still leading the campaign, which the Harris team subsequently honored. Others pointed to a pervasive anxiety within the campaign about potential public exposure of missed deadlines, prompting increased spending on fundraising efforts that yielded negative returns. Additionally, some argued that the campaign's disorganization hindered its ability to resonate with voter dissatisfaction, articulate a compelling message, or effectively leverage the momentum Harris had built until the very end.
A Democratic official closely associated with the campaign expressed surprise at the campaign's near success, stating that it has been fundamentally flawed from the outset. The majority of the more than a dozen campaign aides, Democratic operatives, strategists, and White House officials interviewed for this report attributed the primary blame to a political environment that has been unfavorable to the Biden administration and its affiliates. They contended that few, if any, Democratic campaigns could have navigated this underlying challenge.
The Democrats may attempt to attribute their shortcomings to various groups, including white women, working-class Hispanics, and Black men, but they must acknowledge their own role in the situation. Their decision to support Biden's ascension to the presidency, coupled with the selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate, has led to significant consequences. Biden's endorsement of Harris has effectively burdened the party with her political liabilities, as the challenges faced by the Biden-Harris administration are now inextricably linked to her. Recent admissions from staffers, particularly those associated with former President Barack Obama, reveal a growing recognition of this reality, as even key figures from his administration have begun to criticize Biden's leadership before distancing themselves from the fallout.
Collect your Trump merch NOW!
David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Harris, expressed on X that while they have made progress, it is insufficient, and he subsequently deleted his account. Criticism was also directed towards campaign leaders, including Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign chair, and her deputy, Rob Flaherty. Democrats who spoke to NOTUS indicated that the campaign's leadership let the vice president down by relying too heavily on analytics, resulting in an insular and micromanaged approach. This structure necessitated that O’Malley Dillon make all decisions, with leadership showing resistance to input or changes from Harris's aides, ultimately leading to accusations of financial irresponsibility.
The audacity of requesting additional funds is questionable, especially considering that the combined expertise of three successful campaigns was insufficient to achieve this goal.
Numerous individuals are questioning the lack of "spontaneous" mass protests following Trump's significant electoral victory. I suspect that the wealthy entities responsible for organizing and financing these artificial grassroots movements are currently unresponsive. The adage holds true: if deceived once, the fault lies with the deceiver; if deceived again, the fault lies with the deceived. These financial backers are evidently signaling that, without a clear strategy and accountability from Democratic leadership regarding their plans for the 2026 and 2028 elections, they will redirect their financial support to other avenues.
Add comment
Comments