How much does the White House cost?

Among the main – unspoken – reasons for Joe Biden’s withdrawal was the choice of the main Democratic financiers to close the purse strings. And what a bag! The millions of people who support presidential campaigns are counted in the hundreds and constitute the indispensable fuel for the functioning of the gigantic media propaganda machines, with their complement of super experts. This is the phenomenon in which the differences between the United States and Europe stand out the most, even if it is rarely mentioned.

If you try to look for some data online, you will find it – at first glance – only on the various regulations. We are rigorous and moralistic, as if, in the age of the Internet, a democratic consensus could be obtained for free. It is not surprising that we increasingly find ourselves with political personnel with a culture of relations with citizens of the 19th century: a face-to-face conversation, with tortellini if ​​necessary. In the United States, the opposite doctrine applies. Since power is at stake, it is normal that voters also take care of their own wallets. Which does not mean turning into a plutocracy. Barack Obama's election was largely achieved thanks to the inauguration of crowdfunding on the web, collecting small sums from millions of subscribers and investing them in the purchase of television space. As well as for the recruitment of professionals essential to manage the subtleties of online communication.

Of course, all things considered, the distances between the two sides of the Atlantic are astonishing. The election – four years ago – of Boris Johnson cost 21 million dollars, more or less what the two American parties invested in a single seat of parliament in Texas. For the by-elections, a few months later, in Georgia, the place that gave the Democrats control of the Senate, 315 million were spent on television alone. It must have been worth it, given that for his winning 2020 campaign, Biden had collected almost a billion and a half dollars, to which must be added the billion collected by his party. Figures destined to be largely outclassed by the current competition. Thanks to her sprint start, Kamala Harris was able to exceed – in the month of July alone – the threshold of 300 million, more than double what had been announced by Trump's seat. The most politically relevant statistic is that 90 percent of contributions to the vice president come from amounts less than $200.

This success is due to unprecedented techniques for engaging voters via the web, with Zoom meetings attended by more than two hundred thousand fans, many of whom then contributed with donations large and small. But the Internet is not only a source of funding. It is also a galaxy of sites that are increasingly difficult to monitor. Consider the multiplication of users and platforms since Obama’s early days, as well as the proliferation of tools and strategies aimed at smearing political opponents. Fighting these battles requires a veritable army – and a very expensive one – of specialists.

Communication gurus and socio-demographic surveys are also indispensable in choosing where to concentrate resources, airtime and audiences. The complex American electoral system concentrates the stakes for final victory in a few states. And deciding where the game is still open is by far the most important responsibility of the two control rooms. Hillary Clinton’s defeat hinged on her neglect of the so-called “Rust Belt” states, the former steel and metalworking colonies of the Midwest, historically unionized and pro-democracy. But they have proven to be the cradle of the malaise among white workers that brought Donald Trump to power. It is with one eye – or rather two – turned toward these states that Kamala Harris will announce her running mate, the vice-presidential candidate, tomorrow. Another occasion when the media’s attention – this time gratuitously – will be fixed on her.