- cross-posted to:
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
- usa@lemmy.ml
https://archive.ph/4QkRB
You must log in or register to comment.
Libs be like:
WE ADOPTED THE FAR LEFTIST POSITION THAT MONEY BUYS ELECTIONS IN THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM
WHAT MORE COULD WE DO?!lol there's a subreddit called somethingiswrong2024 that's dedicated to the supposed election theft, and they all think she's secretly working behind the scenes to prove trump stole the election and that's why she isn't fighting the results. because she's gonna drop some bomb shell on us all. meanwhile she's like "gimme money so i can run again coconuts :)"2
A lib Jan 6th would be a crowd of a dozen or so NPR fanatics singing Hamilton songs in front of the White House.
It would be so means tested and delayed it would actually get pushed to March 5th.
Only gay children of single mothers who are above the age of 41 who lived in area classified as "Enduring Poverty" are real patriots, and therefore get to go do a Jan 6 (March 5th).
god that is breathtakingly disgusting. she wants to run again to see if she can break the high score i guess
Though Ms. Harris had been on the ticket from the start, her advisers discovered that the Biden operation had done virtually no research on her strengths and weaknesses.
I can't imagine being a liberal and taking yourself seriously. What the absolute fuck.
I'm still mad about the "Bernie is a bad candidate because he hasn't been vetted" line so this very cathartic to read
I understand how difficult the assignment would be. What is a strength of the least-popular candidate in the primary?
I don't know what's funnier: there was no research done by the team that got paid to do research or that Biden did no opposition research on Kamala in the primary and she still got dumpster'd.
Remember all the spin on why Kamala was a good candidate for vp? It's funny how quickly they drop the facade.
They dropped it? Liberals are still worshipping her and she's planning to run again.
This is neither here nor there, but I want to talk about the little audio track that all these major news sites have now of an AI voice reading out their articles.
I don't like them.
Obviously there's an argument to be made in favor of accessibility, and they aren't really doing anything that built-in voice-over accessibility settings weren't already doing, except maybe a little more pleasing to listen to, so I'm not saying that when the cultural revolution comes such things should be banned outright. I just feel like major institutions like the NYT or WAPO could easily afford to pay a small staff of people a very nice wage to read their paper aloud.
My butlerian-jihad-esque reflexive hatred of anything labeled "AI" or "automated" maybe isn't totally appropriate here, I could see a reasonable argument being made for smaller, online-only outfits that still want to have this accessibility feature being allowed it. But if the NYT doesn't want to pay a narrator to read the articles or an audio engineer to alter the recording in case of later corrections or whatever hypothetical argument could be launched against this seems like labor-"saving" bullshit to me.
Yeah, I hate that shit. Some places (e.g. the New Yorker, ProPublica) work with Audm and have professional voiceover done on some of their features, which is actually great and usually the way I read those articles.
Ms. Harris inherited a campaign based in inconvenient Wilmington, Del.,
why is it inconvenient? with 1.5 bn you have the budget room to just lease a new office
that was built for President Biden,
as if the chairs were the wrong size or something
and she had limited time to refashion it to better suit her strengths.
lol what strengths??
The bourgeoise has 2 wolves inside them
I built amazon from my basement
Help I need custom designed rooms to do video meetings
The Old Man Smell in the office put a -5 modifier on her charisma and wisdom stats
Furthermore, Wilmington is right between DC, where the Democratic Party is headquartered, and Philadelphia, the biggest Democratic stronghold in one of the most important swing states. How is that inconvenient?
she had limited time to refashion it to better suit her strengths
I know this is probably meant in the sense of altering it to better fit her team and their aims (which is still nuts, this is a presidential campaign you clowns just move a few desks around), but I prefer to imagine they were trying to decide on a paint color and change the aesthetic
Seems more befitting for a bunch this incompetent
trying to decide on a paint color and change the aesthetic
surely brat green
Only for the summer, had to change it after to stay 'trendy'
hence the contention
Changing the paint, decor, and layout every week because vibes and reasons
Should have chosen the bright red illuminated walls of the suicide theater Edward G Robinson uses at the end of Soylent Green, given how badly they fucked up this campaign
Apparently listing any sort of policy positions on your campaign website must cost at least $1.6 billion.
There is nothing these fuckers will not try to spin...
“There is not a single expenditure in a different spot that would have changed the outcome of the race,” said Bakari Sellers, a close ally of Ms. Harris and a former lawmaker in South Carolina. In fact, Mr. Sellers said, the campaign faced an unusual problem: “We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door.”
$200,000 for 15 weeks (at most) is a pretty sweet gig...
Some media allies of Ms. Harris were also paid. Areva Martin, who hosts a talk show, was paid $200,000 as a media consultant, and she went on a battleground-state tour in October.
Look at this "unanswered question"...
One of the unanswered questions is who exactly made money off the commissions on Ms. Harris’s advertising, which can be especially lucrative. Such payments are often hidden even in federal disclosures.
In 2020, for instance, Mike Donilon, who was one of Mr. Biden’s top strategists, reported on his personal financial disclosure form with the White House that his consultancy had earned $4.35 million in 2020, far more than the roughly $543,000 disclosed to the Federal Election Commission in payments to his firm.
Numerous firms could have netted big commissions from the Harris campaign. Four companies received at least $90 million in payments as of mid-October, including one firm whose cumulative receipts from the Harris campaign approached $300 million.
"Push for" literally made me laugh out loud...
In a note on Friday to Ms. Harris’s top fund-raisers, Chris Korge, the Democratic National Committee’s finance chair, said that losing all seven battleground states had “shocked us all.”
“I will absolutely push for an introspective study and analysis of the campaign, its structure, its messaging, all communication platforms and budgeting,” Mr. Korge wrote.
Vice President Kamala Harris spent a remarkable $1.5 billion in her hyper-compressed 15-week presidential campaign. But in the days since losing to President-elect Donald J. Trump, her operation has faced questions internally and externally over where exactly all that cash went.
Despite her significant financial advantage, Ms. Harris became the first Democratic presidential candidate to lose the national popular vote in two decades, ceding every battleground state to Mr. Trump.
Her cash-rich campaign spared no expense as it hunted for voters — paying for an avalanche of advertising, social-media influencers, a for-hire door-knocking operation, thousands of staff, pricey rallies, a splashy Oprah town hall, celebrity concerts and even drone shows.
It was a spree that averaged roughly $100 million per week.
The frenzied spending has led to second-guessing among some Democrats, including whether investing in celebrity-fueled events with stars such as Lady Gaga and Beyoncé was more ostentatious than effective.
Since her loss, the Harris operation has pressed supporters for more cash with desperate-sounding solicitations, stirring fears about post-election debts. “Is there anything we can say?” came one email asking for cash last Monday.
The biggest expense during the race was advertising. Between July 21 and Oct. 16, financial records show that the Harris campaign spent $494 million on producing and buying media, a category that includes both television and digital ads. The total sum through the election is said to be closer to $600 million.
Yet starting in October, her campaign was actually narrowly outspent on broadcast television by Mr. Trump, according to data from the ad-tracking service AdImpact.
The ads were just one piece of a campaign that had enough cash to spend on seemingly everything. There was $2.5 million directed toward three digital agencies that work with online influencers, records show. The campaign spent around $900,000 to book advertising on the exterior of the Sphere venue in Las Vegas in the last week of the race, two officials said. There were drone shows in the sky before the debate in Philadelphia in September and at a Pittsburgh Steelers game in October.
In a note on Friday to Ms. Harris’s top fund-raisers, Chris Korge, the Democratic National Committee’s finance chair, said that losing all seven battleground states had “shocked us all.”
“I will absolutely push for an introspective study and analysis of the campaign, its structure, its messaging, all communication platforms and budgeting,” Mr. Korge wrote.
Given the magnitude of Ms. Harris’s loss, more of the focus so far has been on the Democratic brand and message rather than the mechanics of her operation. Ms. Harris inherited a campaign based in inconvenient Wilmington, Del., that was built for President Biden, and she had limited time to refashion it to better suit her strengths.
Ms. Harris added some senior advisers but mostly kept the Biden team in place, including Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the powerful campaign chair who oversaw the finances and virtually every major move.
The campaign’s spending decisions were documented in Federal Election Commission records and interviews with 15 Harris campaign officials and close allies, most of whom insisted on anonymity to discuss internal finances and dynamics candidly. Many of the financial figures in this article are from the latest campaign reports; some are from Harris officials with knowledge of the spending. All told, the Biden and Harris campaigns collectively raised about $2.15 billion, two people said.
It is not clear exactly how much Mr. Trump spent though it was far less. Mr. Trump and the Republican Party together raised $1.2 billion, one person with knowledge of the figure said.
Even in defeat, there were some signs of the effectiveness of Ms. Harris’s spending: She performed stronger in the battleground states than nationally. Some Harris aides and allies have taken a strange sort of solace in the scope of her defeat as Mr. Trump captured 312 electoral votes — far more than the 270 needed to win.
“There is not a single expenditure in a different spot that would have changed the outcome of the race,” said Bakari Sellers, a close ally of Ms. Harris and a former lawmaker in South Carolina. In fact, Mr. Sellers said, the campaign faced an unusual problem: “We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door.”
Patrick Stauffer, the campaign’s chief financial officer, said in a statement that there had been no outstanding debts or overdue bills as of Election Day. He said that “there will be no debt” on the next Democratic National Committee and Harris for President campaign filings in December.
Donations made after the election to the “Harris Fight Fund” are being funneled to the Democratic National Committee, officials said.
In recent days, the committee has shed hundreds of staff members, an expected downsizing after the defeat. The party had a payroll of roughly 680 in October and is shrinking by roughly 70 percent, according to two people familiar with the cutbacks. A D.N.C. official said 95 percent of those being let go had a post-election end date in their offer letter.
Still, the reductions were symbolic of the boom-and-bust of elections — and the severity of the bust in defeat. “We are prepared to lead the fight against Donald Trump into the future,” said Rosemary Boeglin, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee.
Mr. Trump himself mocked the Harris team for its financial situation in a recent social-media post: “Whatever we can do to help them during this difficult period,” he offered.
One particular Harris payment has drawn attention in the aftermath of the election: the $1 million paid to Oprah Winfrey’s production firm, Harpo Productions. In an Instagram post, Ms. Winfrey said the company was paid to stage a live-streamed town hall in Detroit, providing the set, lights, cameras, microphones, crew, producers and even the chairs.
“I did not take any personal fee,” Ms. Winfrey wrote. “However the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story.”
The $1 million actually undercounts the full cost of the event, which ran closer to $2.5 million, according to two people briefed on the matter.
Another pricey choice was holding swing-state rallies featuring star performers on the eve of the election, including Lady Gaga in Philadelphia, Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Nevada, James Taylor in North Carolina and Katy Perry in Pittsburgh.
The singers themselves were not compensated, officials said, but the support staff was. The overall bill for the election-eve rallies exceeded the planned budget and is said to have topped $10 million.
The cost overruns were partly because the Harris team built an entire rally venue at a park in Pittsburgh only to be told by the Secret Service that the site could not be properly secured. They had to rush to take it down and rebuild at a second venue.
“Because of Vice President Harris’s unparalleled fund-raising prowess,” Mr. Stauffer said, “we were able to run an aggressive all-of-the-above strategy to reach voters, keeping the seven battleground states incredibly close.”
Even as Ms. Harris ran notably stronger in battlegrounds such as Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina than in surrounding areas, those results were double-edged, politically. They suggested that the ticket she led was so unpopular that it took an enormous campaign just to limit her losses.
Though Ms. Harris had been on the ticket from the start, her advisers discovered that the Biden operation had done virtually no research on her strengths and weaknesses. Her operation spent more than $12 million on polling from July 21 to mid-October, records show.
Other major costs, according to records and campaign officials, included $111 million in online ads seeking donations, at least $100 million transferred to battleground-state parties, $70 million on mail and nearly $28 million to produce the merchandise that people were ordering. And for all the focus on her volunteer program, the campaign spent a significant sum — about $50 million — for paid door-to-door canvassers.
In an Oct. 16 memo, the leading super PAC supporting Ms. Harris raised alarms about being outspent on television. The group, Future Forward, said in the memo, which was first reported by The Washington Post, that it would be “difficult for anyone” but the Harris team to close the gap because of the higher ad rates that super PACs pay.
[continues]
It was hardly Future Forward’s only frustration. Another memo, issued days later, pointed out “very high-performing ads that have yet to get a big spend.” One ad, Future Forward said, had ranked in the “100th percentile” — meaning it was the most effective — yet it had virtually never been aired.
Campaign officials, meanwhile, were frustrated that Future Forward sat on so much of its money until the final weeks, forcing the campaign to spend more on the airwaves earlier.
Another Harris challenge: After raising $1 billion in less than three months, a bevy of consultants, allies and others were often angling for a cut, including the chairman of the Democratic Party in Philadelphia. In September, the Harris operation contributed almost $25 million to other party committees, in part to quiet those demands.
Some media allies of Ms. Harris were also paid. Areva Martin, who hosts a talk show, was paid $200,000 as a media consultant, and she went on a battleground-state tour in October.
Roland Martin, who hosts his own streaming programming and runs a media company called Nu Vision Media, received $350,000 in September for a “media buy” that he said was for advertising.
“It should have been a hell of a lot more,” Mr. Martin said in a brief interview. “More should have been spent on Black-owned media.” Mr. Martin interviewed Ms. Harris in October.
Ms. Harris’s campaign also made two $250,000 donations to National Action Network, the organization led by the Rev. Al Sharpton. Mr. Sharpton interviewed Ms. Harris on MSNBC in October.
As Ms. Harris faced questions about relative weakness among Black voters, her campaign gave $2 million in late September to the National Urban League.
One of the unanswered questions is who exactly made money off the commissions on Ms. Harris’s advertising, which can be especially lucrative. Such payments are often hidden even in federal disclosures.
In 2020, for instance, Mike Donilon, who was one of Mr. Biden’s top strategists, reported on his personal financial disclosure form with the White House that his consultancy had earned $4.35 million in 2020, far more than the roughly $543,000 disclosed to the Federal Election Commission in payments to his firm.
Numerous firms could have netted big commissions from the Harris campaign. Four companies received at least $90 million in payments as of mid-October, including one firm whose cumulative receipts from the Harris campaign approached $300 million.
Shane Goldmacher is a national political correspondent, covering the 2024 campaign and the major developments, trends and forces shaping American politics. He can be reached at shane.goldmacher@nytimes.com.
