Russias invasion of Ukraine needed Trump to win. Their bot farms aren’t on the books. Billionaires were literally buying votes and that wasn’t counted as campaign spending. To claim Trump won because spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore is to ignore how Trump won.
Foreign interference isn’t magic; Russian bots didn’t hand Trump the win, just like Iran hacking Vance didn’t hand him a loss. Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris. These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence. These are excuses to avoid the conclusion that, despite spending way more than Trump, Harris’ campaign and message weren’t good enough to win.
These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence.
They are based on the evidence that Trump won.
Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris.
You’re comparing Elons super PAC’s success (Trump won = Elons super PAC successful) to Mark Cuban, a single billionaire that supported Harris and was unsuccessful as measured by the evidence that Harris lost.
Billionaires don’t want to be taxed. Harris campaigned on taxing billionaires. Marc Cuban was an exception to that rule
Marc Cuban wasn’t enough to counter the work of all the other billionaires, whose efforts were not included in campaign spending.
This isn’t reality, this is contradictory nonsense based on vibes. Saying Musk Super PAC must have been effective because Trump won is like saying Trump’s golden sneakers must have been effective because Trump won. And by this exact logic, spending more must not have been effective, because Trump spent less and he won.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Russias invasion of Ukraine needed Trump to win. Their bot farms aren’t on the books. Billionaires were literally buying votes and that wasn’t counted as campaign spending. To claim Trump won because spending isn’t everything in campaigns anymore is to ignore how Trump won.
Foreign interference isn’t magic; Russian bots didn’t hand Trump the win, just like Iran hacking Vance didn’t hand him a loss. Elon Musk’s Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris. These reasons you’re giving for Trump’s victory aren’t based on evidence. These are excuses to avoid the conclusion that, despite spending way more than Trump, Harris’ campaign and message weren’t good enough to win.
They are based on the evidence that Trump won.
You’re comparing Elons super PAC’s success (Trump won = Elons super PAC successful) to Mark Cuban, a single billionaire that supported Harris and was unsuccessful as measured by the evidence that Harris lost.
Billionaires don’t want to be taxed. Harris campaigned on taxing billionaires. Marc Cuban was an exception to that rule
Marc Cuban wasn’t enough to counter the work of all the other billionaires, whose efforts were not included in campaign spending.
This isn’t reality, this is contradictory nonsense based on vibes. Saying Musk Super PAC must have been effective because Trump won is like saying Trump’s golden sneakers must have been effective because Trump won. And by this exact logic, spending more must not have been effective, because Trump spent less and he won.
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.
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.
Wait, the narrative is that money doesn’t matter at all, when your numbers explicitly call out that the difference is only 10%?
lol, what a fucking idiotic talking point.
…no, not what I said. 10% in PAC money on top of half a billion in direct campaign spending.
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.
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?
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.
Fact Sheet: What We Know about Russia’s Interference Operations
You’re gonna pretend Trump is running a grassroots campaign without Russian backing?