The Democratic Party’s approach to Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign for president wasn’t about victory—it was about profit.
Despite Harris’s lack of political viability, she served as the perfect Trojan horse for a campaign that allowed consultants, strategists, and other Leftist power players to rake in millions of dollars. By the time the dust settled, the tab to rebrand Harris had ballooned to a staggering $3.5 billion: $1 billion spent directly on her campaign and an additional $2.5 billion funneled into external efforts. For context, that’s one of the most expensive political makeovers in American history.
The Harris Grift: A $3.5 Billion Boondoggle
The Democratic machine knew from the outset that Kamala Harris wasn’t going to win. Harris’s early campaign floundered due to poor messaging, lackluster public appearances, and her inability to connect with voters. As detailed in reports, her campaign faced steep challenges from the start, and internal polling revealed what the public already suspected: Harris would be trounced by Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchupis stopped Democratic consultants from lining their pockets. The campaign and its satellite operations served as a cash cow for strategists, pollsters, media buyers, and other political insiders. As the saying goes, “Everyone is taking their skim.” Harris didn’t need to win; she just needed to stay in the game long enough for the consultants to get paid.
The Leftist Food Chain: Profiting Off a Lost Cause
One of the more remarkable aspects of Harris’s doomed campaign was how the Democratic ecosystem turned it into a lucrative business model. Here’s how it worked:
- Consultants and Strategists: These insiders knew Harris wasn’t viable but pushed her campaign forward anyway, billing millions for their “expertise.” From speechwriters to digital strategists, the Democratic consulting complex took its cut.
- Media Buyers and Pollsters: Much of the $2.5 billion spent outside Harris’s direct campaign went to advertising and polling efforts, both of which were designed more to enrich their operators than to sway voters.
- Fundraisers: Figures like Linda Lu, a Democratic fundraiser, reportedly expressed frustration over raising massive sums for a campaign destined to fail. Internal polling showed Harris’s poor performance, but fundraising efforts continued unabated, leaving many donors in the dark about the campaign’s real prospects .
The parallels to the left’s pandemic profits are striking. Just as pharmaceutical companies cashed in during COVID-19, Democratic operatives exploited Harris’s campaign for their financial gain. Both systems relied on deception: selling false hope to a public desperate for results.
Harris: A Candidate Built for Profit, Not Presidency
The question of why Democrats would run a subpar candidate like Harris has a simple answer: She was the best they had. But more importantly, she was the best vehicle for profit. Harris’s flaws as a candidate didn’t matter because her candidacy wasn’t about her. It was about creating a billion-dollar business model disguised as a political campaign.
Harris was marketed as a historic candidate, a woman of color ready to break barriers. This narrative helped energize donors, but it wasn’t enough to conceal her glaring weaknesses. Despite these efforts, the campaign timeline tells the real story: Harris’s collapse was inevitable. From her inability to articulate a coherent message to her infamous “word salads,” Harris’s shortcomings made it clear that she wasn’t a contender for the White House.
When Did They Know Harris Would Lose?
The reality is that Democratic insiders knew Harris would fail from the beginning. Internal polling reportedly predicted a landslide Trump victory if Harris became the nominee. Yet, they pressed on, likely because abandoning the campaign would mean forfeiting the windfall of cash that her candidacy generated.
Linda Lu’s lamentation about raising funds for a losing cause underscores the cynicism at play. The Democratic machine wasn’t interested in Harris’s policy proposals or potential to lead. Her campaign existed solely to enrich those running it.
What Happens Next?
The Democrats’ strategy with Harris highlights a grim reality: They’re running out of viable candidates. Harris wasn’t just a bad choice; she was the best choice the party could muster. Her failure reflects deeper problems within the Democratic Party, where ideological purity and identity politics often trump competence and electability.
If Harris had any common sense, she would crawl under a rock like Hillary Clinton did. Instead, she’s still trying to bring in contributions to “fight conservative efforts at play” or at least pad her pocketbook one more time. As the campaign money dries up and Harris’s viability as a candidate fades, the real winners will be the consultants who made millions off her doomed campaign. The losers? Democratic voters who believed Harris could deliver meaningful change, only to find out she was little more than a means to an end.
In the end, the $3.5 billion spent to transform Kamala Harris from a political afterthought to a presidential contender is less a testament to her capabilities and more an indictment of a political system designed to profit off failure. For Democrats, the grift continues—but for how long?
