Now that the speeches are over and the balloons swept away, two major questions remain for the Democrats in the aftermath of last week’s convention.
The first regards the poll bump Kamala Harris can expect coming out of Chicago, which may likely take time before data provides a definitive figure. The second is the amount of money she and running mate Tim Walz were able to haul in—and here at least there’s an answer that might prove surprising.
Harris campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon revealed that $82 million was raised during the nearly weeklong affair. Adjusted for inflation, that’s less than the $70 million Biden managed four years ago during a convention held in the middle of the COVID pandemic.
This also puts it just shy of the $85 million the Republicans took in last month during their rival convention in Milwaukee. The latter did, however, take place under unusual circumstances, coming immediately on the heels of an assassination attempt on nominee Donald Trump.
In total, the Harris campaign said it has raised $540 million since she declared her candidacy on July 21, one-third of which it claims comes from first-time donors. This would suggest Harris is reaching voters Biden couldn’t.
“This is the most ever for any presidential campaign in this time span,” O’Malley Dillon stated.
The figures cannot be verified independently as yet, but both campaigns have to file monthly updates on their fundraising with the Federal Election Commission. That means there’s little incentive to play fast and loose with these estimates.
Campaigns Flood Pennsylvania with Ads
While nationwide polls suggest Harris is enjoying a minor advantage over Trump, it is well within the margin of error, and both have multiple paths by which they can win the necessary 270 electoral college votes. Most experts believe the eventual victor will be whoever locks up Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes by winning in deep-purple communities such as Erie County.
According to data from AdImpact, spending in the Keystone State by both campaigns since Harris joined the race last month dwarfs that of any other battleground, coming in at roughly twice the amount spent in Michigan and Georgia.
The economy is once again expected to play a major role come Election Day, with many Americans feeling poorer despite a U.S. economy that has outperformed all its peers, sparking the term “vibecession.”
While Trump is focusing on familiar issues like extending his 2017 tax cut and imposing a punitive tariff of 60% on goods imported from China, Harris is countering with a plan to tax unrealized capital gains for the ultrawealthy and clamp down on corporate price gouging and “greedflation.”
Implications and Future Trends
The fundraising dynamics observed in this election cycle underscore a significant shift in political campaigning. The ability to raise substantial amounts of money, particularly from first-time donors, indicates a growing engagement among voters who may have felt disenfranchised in previous elections. This trend could lead to a more diverse voter base, which may reshape campaign strategies moving forward.
As political campaigns increasingly rely on digital platforms for fundraising and outreach, the implications for traditional media and advertising are profound. Campaigns are likely to continue investing heavily in targeted digital ads, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, where local issues resonate deeply with voters. This could lead to a more personalized approach to voter engagement, utilizing data analytics to tailor messages that address specific community concerns.
The economic narrative surrounding the upcoming election will also be crucial. With many Americans experiencing financial anxiety despite a robust economy, candidates will need to address these sentiments effectively. The emergence of terms like “vibecession” reflects a growing disconnect between economic indicators and public perception, suggesting that future campaigns may need to prioritize emotional resonance over mere economic statistics.
Moreover, the contrasting economic policies proposed by Harris and Trump highlight a broader ideological divide that could influence voter turnout. As both candidates present distinct visions for the economy, the effectiveness of their messaging will likely determine their success in mobilizing support.
In conclusion, the evolving landscape of political campaigning, characterized by innovative fundraising strategies and a heightened focus on economic messaging, will shape the dynamics of the upcoming election. Candidates who can navigate these complexities and connect with voters on a personal level may find themselves at a distinct advantage.
