The question of whether Kamala Harris would still face substantial debt if Donald Trump hadn’t won the election speaks to complex dynamics in U.S. campaign financing, spending strategies, and electoral circumstances. Despite raising over $1 billion, Harris’s campaign ended with at least $20 million in debt after a high-spending race, largely attributed to significant expenditures on large-scale, celebrity-studded events designed to galvanize swing-state voters. This lavish approach included star-studded concerts and extensive on-the-ground efforts but fell short, leaving the campaign with considerable financial challenges. 
Had Trump not emerged as the opposing candidate, the financial landscape could have shifted. Historically, high-profile, costly campaigns often arise when the opposing candidate commands strong loyalty and resources, which Trump’s return to the political arena undoubtedly brought. This competition likely pressured Harris’s campaign into more ambitious spending to keep pace with Trump’s base, which remained resilient despite his comparatively lower spending per vote. Harris’s decision to invest heavily in high-visibility events also reflects a broader Democratic strategy aimed at maintaining or mobilizing enthusiasm in key demographics—an approach that ultimately proved financially taxing.
Moreover, the high stakes associated with challenging Trump, a polarizing figure with substantial grassroots support, may have contributed to Harris’s team betting on big, costly public appearances to sway undecided or swing voters. Had she faced a less polarizing opponent, her campaign may not have committed to such a high-budget strategy.
Would things have been any different if Kamala Harris had won?
If Kamala Harris had won the election, her campaign might still face financial challenges, but the situation would likely be different. A winning campaign often has access to new fundraising channels and momentum from its victory, which could help address lingering debt. Winning typically attracts additional donations from supporters, interest groups, and party donors eager to maintain influence with an incoming administration, easing the campaign’s financial pressures.
However, even with a victory, her campaign’s large-scale spending on rallies, high-profile concerts, and get-out-the-vote efforts could mean a deficit, especially since her team opted for costly strategies that didn’t yield a decisive result. Ultimately, while winning could open pathways to cover the debt, the level of initial campaign expenditure would still require a concerted post-election fundraising effort to clear the books.
