In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, polls are starting to show Vice President Kamala Harris in the lead ahead of Donald Trump. While on the surface these polls may appear to reflect genuine voter sentiment, a deeper look at the economic incentives behind the media and pollsters suggests that these results may be less about real public opinion and more about financial interests.
The Influence of Kamala Harris’s Massive Campaign Fund
Kamala Harris’s campaign has reportedly raised close to half a billion dollars in preparation for the 2024 election. This enormous sum isn’t just used for grassroots campaigning or voter outreach—it fuels a massive marketing machine, with millions of dollars pouring into TV ads, social media spots, and network airtime. The major media outlets receiving these advertising dollars have a vested interest in ensuring that Harris’s campaign looks successful, is on track, as it keeps her fundraising and spending flowing in their direction.
The media landscape is largely dependent on advertising dollars, and political campaigns are one of the largest advertisers during election seasons. For networks to continue receiving a significant share of the Harris campaign’s ad spending, they must show that these ads are working. Pollsters, hired by these networks, are under pressure to produce results that reinforce the narrative that Harris is gaining momentum and that is why you should advertise on CNN.
This creates a feedback loop:
Harris spends money on ads.
The media reports her as leading in the polls.
Pollsters, incentivized to show that her campaign is effective, publish favorable results.
This cycle continues, keeping the money flowing and sustaining the illusion of an inevitable Harris victory.
The ‘Surge’ Is Temporary and Manufactured
These early polls showing Harris ahead are designed to show that her campaign’s massive advertising blitz is having the desired effect. But this narrative is driven by the need to justify the enormous spending on ads. The networks want to show that their platforms are the best place to advertise, and favorable poll results give them the evidence they need.
However, this surge will only last as long as Harris’s campaign can continue to fund it. As her money dries up closer to the election, the media and pollsters will no longer be incentivized to inflate her numbers. This is when the polls will start to “tighten” and the narrative will shift, setting the stage for a potential late-game changing surge by Donald Trump who is clearly the favourite.
Fake Polls and Media Manipulation
The polls showing Harris leading aren’t necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. They are the product of media manipulation, driven by financial incentives. Networks and pollsters are not neutral parties—they are businesses with their own financial interests. As long as Harris continues to spend heavily, they have every reason to inflate her perceived chances of winning.
This cycle of fake polls and fake media narratives misleads the public into thinking Harris is a frontrunner. In reality, the polls are more a reflection of how much money her campaign has spent on advertising, rather than true voter sentiment. Once the financial incentives shift—when Harris runs low on funds—the polls will “correct” themselves, and the race will appear much closer, and then you have the election with a Trump resurgence. America was not ready for a female President.
Conclusion
The polls showing Kamala Harris leading in the 2024 U.S. election are largely a byproduct of economics, not genuine public support. With half a billion dollars at her disposal, Harris’s campaign fuels a media machine that’s financially incentivized to show her as the frontrunner. But as her campaign spending dwindles, so too will her manufactured lead in the polls, paving the way for a more realistic reflection of the race—and possibly, a surge for Donald Trump at the last minute.
In short, the current polls are fake, a product of media and pollsters eager to benefit from the vast advertising dollars in Harris’s war chest, rather than an honest representation of voter sentiment. It is always about the money; half a billion dollars to be exact.
Recommended for you
