• UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Super PACs supply funding for campaigns. Is that not reality?

    Funding for a campaign = more resources for the campaign to accomplish more. Is that not reality?

    Campaigning is done to increase votes for a candidate. Is that not reality?

    Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?

    But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?

    Trump selling sneakers was for his personal gain and unrelated to campaign funding.

    I don’t know why any of that needs to be explained.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      What are you not getting here? HARRIS HAD MORE MONEY. HARRIS SPENT MORE MONEY. HARRIS LOST.

      Harris campaign took in HALF A BILLION MORE THAN TRUMP in direct contributions. In terms of dark money, her Super PAC, Future Forward USA, took in $423 million while Trump’s PAC, Maga America Great Again Inc., took in $280 million. Even if you look at all the Super PAC money spent on the presidential race in 2024,
      $889 million was spent on pro-Harris/anti-Trump messaging, while only $834 million was spent on pro-Trump/anti-Harris messaging. Any way you slice it, the money was on Harris’ side, not Trump’s.

      You’ve got a narrative in your head that the billionaires all teamed up and used their money to defeat Harris, but it’s based on nothing but your feelings and assumptions, not reality. And remember, you’re the one who started off claiming that if Bernie couldn’t beat the DNC conspiring against him, he couldn’t beat billionaires and their Super PAC money. But now you’re the one who won’t accept that the money was on Harris’ side this election and she fucking lost.

      • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What are you not getting?

        Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?

        But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?

        Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations. You’re feelings and opinions won’t change that.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations.

          Literally all of the data I shared says the fucking opposite, dude! On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him. So, what actual evidence do you have to back up your assertions here? Or is it just the vibes?

          • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.

            You shared an opinion piece about Bloomberg and a chart of Super PAC spending.

            Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.

            On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him.

            Fact Sheet: What We Know about Russia’s Interference Operations

            You’re gonna pretend Trump is running a grassroots campaign without Russian backing?

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              25 minutes ago

              OK, so gonna recap here; you think it didn’t matter that the DNC conspired against Bernie in 2020 because billionaires would have used their wealth to crush his grassroots campaign. I’ve shown you data that proves the Harris campaign spent a half-billion more than Trump in 2016, that more dark money went to Harris than Trump, and that Trump won with the type of small-donor grassroots campaign that Bernie had, and your conter argument is a fact sheet on Russian disinformation campaigns. Nice vibes dude.