Corporate state media’s latest line of attack on the 2024 Republican nominee is that he’s too poor to run for office… or something to that effect.
Something’s gotta stick to Teflon Don, after all, and Joe Biden isn’t getting any more lucid in the interim.
Related: Biden Wanders Aimlessly in Rain, Karen Handlers Shoo Away Press
Via Politico (emphasis added):
Donald Trump doesn’t have the money to match what Democrats are expected to spend against him in the presidential campaign. He’s holding fewer of his expensive, signature rallies. He’s ramping up his fundraising — but trying to pay down his legal bills. And he’s about to get swamped on the airwaves.
Inside his constellation of donors, there is an acknowledgment that the campaign needs to begin building up its war chest — and quickly bring more backers on board.
“Make no mistake, it’s not going to be easy,” said former Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, a major donor. “There’s donor fatigue. And what we have to focus on is not just fundraising, but making sure that people understand the contrast between the two candidates.”
Like other donors who spoke with POLITICO this week, Loeffler projected optimism that Trump will have the resources necessary — and that he likely won’t need to raise as much money as President Joe Biden to keep his polling lead.
This is a non-problem the corporate state media is desperate — and pathetically so — to turn into a problem.
All this means is that the vast majority of big, institutional — Deep State, if you will — political bootstrappers support Biden for reelection.
What MSNBC doesn’t — and arguably can’t, given its perch inside of the ruling class in its carefully manicured and gate-kept bubble — is that, to the average voter, Trump having less cash on hand means nothing to them, except that he’s not as bought-off as the competition.
Regular Americans hate the corruption, and they hate the donor class.
Furthermore, we’re in a whole new age. Advertising on legacy media isn’t what it used to be. Independent media (like PJ) wields far more influence than it once did, and the enthusiasm gap between Trump’s base and Biden’s base (if he can be said to have any outside of D.C.) is chasmic.
Looking back at the infamous 2016 brutal defeat of The Chosen One, Her Heinousness Hillary Clinton, and the Broken Glass Ceiling That Never Was, shattered gloriously by the orange hands of Trump, we see that her campaign outspent his by a two-to-one margin — and we all saw how that turned out.
Via Washington Post (emphasis added):
The final price tag for the 2016 election is in: $6.5 billion for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.
The presidential contest — primaries and all — accounts for $2.4 billion of that total. The other $4 billion or so went to congressional races. The tally includes spending by campaigns, party committees and outside sources. It's actually down, slightly, in inflation-adjusted terms from 2012 and 2008.
$6.5 billion is a staggering sum. With that much money you could fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for 15 years, fix the Flint, Mich., lead pipe problem 30 times over or give every public school teacher a $2,000 raise.
Instead, Americans used that money to fuel a 596-day political contest that most of us were 'disgusted' by well before it was over.
Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins.
