- In 2020, Biden had more than 2 million more individual donors than Trump did.
- Today, the Biden-turned-Harris campaign has more than 2.4 times the number of donors as the Trump campaign — a gap of nearly 4.3 million funders.
- From Sep. 1 through Oct. 16, Harris’ campaign brought in more than 1.5 million new donors, or an average of more than 43,000 per day.
With the 2024 U.S. election reaching its final stretch, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign has set a strong financial pace, leading in both total funds raised and the number of individual donors compared to former President Donald Trump’s campaign. Harris’s consistent influx of new donors has provided her campaign with a marked financial advantage, contrasting with Trump’s reliance on episodic boosts in support tied to high-profile events. While Harris’s apparatus builds on Biden’s successful fundraising infrastructure, Trump’s campaign finds itself contending with fewer small-dollar donors and a stagnant base.
This discrepancy in donor engagement has allowed Harris to maintain a substantial financial cushion, contributing to a broader Democratic strategy as the election approaches. However, recent polling data suggests that while Harris’s financial lead bolsters her outreach, it may not translate to a straightforward electoral advantage, particularly in the pivotal swing states that form the “Blue Wall.”
Harris’s Fundraising Surge
Since Harris assumed the Democratic ticket in mid-July, her campaign has experienced a steady and notable growth in donor support, far outpacing Trump’s figures. As of the most recent Federal Election Commission data, Harris’s operation has attracted over 7 million individual donors, surpassing the approximately 5.3 million amassed by Biden at the same point in the 2020 race. In fact, Harris’s campaign has brought in more than 1.5 million new donors within her first 10 days of taking over, averaging about 43,000 new donors per day from September through mid-October.
This sustained growth in donor engagement has enabled Harris to build a robust campaign apparatus, well-equipped to sustain extensive outreach efforts in the election’s critical final stages. The surge reflects not only Harris’s appeal within the Democratic base but also a significant mobilization effort that leverages digital platforms and grassroots support networks.
Trump’s Event-Driven Donor Peaks
In contrast to Harris’s steady donor growth, Trump’s fundraising spikes have been closely linked to specific high-profile events rather than sustained engagement. His most notable increase in new donors occurred after his conviction in the New York criminal trial, which drove a temporary surge in contributions and mobilized his base around the notion of perceived persecution. Similarly, Trump’s fundraising saw another boost following a July assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, which rallied his supporters in the wake of the incident.
During these peaks, Trump added roughly 35,000 new donors in a single day, demonstrating his ability to capitalize on extraordinary circumstances to galvanize support. Despite these impactful surges, Trump’s reliance on episodic spikes may expose weaknesses in his ability to maintain continuous support from small-dollar donors.
Close Race in the Blue Wall States
Although Harris holds a clear fundraising edge, polling data in key battleground states underscores the competitive nature of the race. In recent surveys conducted by Marist College, Harris maintains a narrow lead over Trump within the critical “Blue Wall” states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These states, which collectively played a pivotal role in the outcome of the 2020 election, are considered vital for both candidates’ paths to victory. According to the surveys conducted from October 27 to October 30, Harris leads Trump by a slim margin: 51% to 48% in Michigan, and similarly close figures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, each with Harris edging Trump by 2-3 percentage points. These narrow leads remain well within the margin of error, signaling a highly competitive landscape.
The Blue Wall states are not only significant for their electoral votes but also for the broader political dynamics they represent. Voter demographics and economic concerns in these states provide a litmus test for each candidate’s ability to resonate with a diverse electorate.
Implications of Donor Engagement for Voter Behavior
The substantial engagement Harris has achieved among small-dollar donors reflects a highly motivated Democratic base. Historically, a large donor base has correlated with stronger voter turnout, suggesting that Harris’s support from millions of engaged donors could translate into a robust showing at the polls. However, political experts caution that the subset of voters who donate does not always align with broader public opinion.
For Trump, event-driven peaks reveal a base that is highly responsive to rallying calls and incidents perceived as attacks on his candidacy or personal integrity. His reliance on such events may foster a tightly knit, emotionally invested base that turns out reliably, albeit in smaller numbers than Harris’s donor base. The potential downside to this approach is its dependency on unique events rather than steady outreach. Without these dramatic boosts, Trump’s campaign may struggle to expand its support, especially among swing voters who remain undecided.
Conclusion: Financial Might Meets Electoral Uncertainty
As both campaigns approach the final week before election day, the difference in donor engagement strategies between Harris and Trump highlights distinct approaches to mobilizing support.
Ultimately, the 2024 election will serve as a measure of which strategy—steady and broad-based donor engagement or targeted emotional appeals—proves more effective. For Harris, her growing base of small donors provides a financial backbone for voter mobilization, while Trump’s event-driven spikes keep his core supporters energized. As both campaigns deploy their final resources, the outcome may rest on voter turnout in the critical Blue Wall states, where enthusiasm and strategic outreach could determine the next president of the United States.
