Was there a timeline to being bad with funds? I recall hearing once that Obama's 2012 campaign used so much damned money it almost bankrupted the DNC, and the DNC would later go on to bend over backwards for Hilary because the Clinton Foundation (or whatever) would pump funding into it. If that's the case then lol, if not it still sounds plausible with things we've learned.
No need - I will tell it to you straight, as someone who worked for them: the Establishment Dems have never been good with funds.
Ever.
When I was in the activist pool, a common joke is that if you could make it two tiers up, you were set for life, because everyone I worked with twenty years ago knew some idiot or another who landed a gig canvassing for some mid-level establishment hack, did the same work we were doing on a volunteer basis (half as well) and got paid a hefty salary for it, only to piss it away, and, if anything, that's gotten worse since I left. There was stories during 2016 of people getting paid six-figure salaries for the DNC while never even showing up. There were people who worked for the non-Hillary Dem Candidates that were still getting paid by the DNC long after the primaries were over and they were no longer needed.
On a staff level, they burn cash like crazy, but where it hits ludicrous speed is that throwing cash around in giant amounts is literally their only response to
anything.
It's why they perpetually got played by the oldschool Dems at the grassroots level; they can throw money around with legendary faire, dominating airwaves with massive ad buy-ins, fucking enormous campaign promotions, and huge events intended to push turn-out, but that is literally
all they can fucking do. And I'm mostly sure they do it because they feel it isn't their cash. Then the funds run dry and they're always flabbergasted when it fucking happens, even though their staff likely told them about it three years or more in advance.