Vice President Kamala Harris said that “now is the time” for a Gaza ceasefire deal and backed Palestinians’ right to self-determination, as she accepted the Democrats’ nomination for the presidency on the final night of the party’s national convention.

When President Biden ended his presidential campaign on July 21, making Vice President Kamala Harris the presumptive Democratic nominee, he unleashed the biggest wave of small-dollar enthusiasm the race has seen.

More than 1.5 million new donors gave to the Harris campaign in the last 11 days of July, according to estimates from a New York Times analysis of donor data filed with the Federal Election Commission. That figure comprises 40 percent of all donors to the Biden and now Harris campaign, which has been raising money since April 2023.

Mr. Biden’s existing donor base was enthusiastic, as well: About 680,000 people who had previously donated to Mr. Biden — just over one-third of his previous donors — came back to give more to Ms. Harris in those 11 days.

More than half a million people total on July 21, and more than 600,000 on July 22, gave to the Democratic presidential campaign through ActBlue, its official fund-raising platform. Their contributions totaled more than $80 million in the first two days. From July 21 through the end of the month, the newly renamed Harris campaign raised $183 million through ActBlue.

The Times’s analysis also combined the donor records with voter registration records to show that new Harris donors were much younger than Biden donors had been. Just 10 percent of Mr. Biden’s donors in July were under 45 years old, compared with 28 percent of Ms. Harris’s donors.

The share of Ms. Harris’s newly acquired donors who were women under 45 was 17 percent — more than double the share of Mr. Biden’s donors who were younger women. Younger men also made up a greater share of Ms. Harris’s donors.

Across all ages, slightly more than 60 percent of both Mr. Biden’s and Ms. Harris’s donors were women.

In a geographic comparison of Mr. Biden’s donors and Ms. Harris’s, the makeup of both pools was very similar. Harris donors were slightly more likely to come from more educated areas: ZIP codes where more than half of those 25 and over had a bachelor’s degree. Ms. Harris also claimed a slightly higher share of first-time small-dollar donors from ZIP codes where more than 5 percent of the population was Black, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau. And differences between the candidates were minor when it came to their ZIP codes’ median household income.

The Times’s analysis did not look at contributions by large donors who give directly to the campaign, fund-raising committees or super PACs without going through ActBlue.

Large donors had been threatening to flee the party after Mr. Biden’s disappointing debate performance, and while some small donors had rushed to the president’s support, they were far outnumbered by the wave of money that flooded in for former President Donald J. Trump after his felony conviction and the attempt on his life.

Full details on donations by large donors will not become clear until October, when the campaign’s associated fund-raising committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission. But on just the strength of small donors alone, the end of July was the most significant fund-raising moment for the Biden or Harris campaign of the entire cycle thus far, and the biggest week for Democratic fund-raising on ActBlue since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Harris campaign in July announced that it had raised over $310 million, more than double what Mr. Trump’s had, on the strength of fund-raising in the last 10 days of the month.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

A group of private credit lenders led by Blue Owl Capital and Ares Management have agreed to take over troubled software company Pluralsight, wiping out $4bn that Vista Equity Partners and other investors had put into the business since they bought it less than four years ago.

The closely watched restructuring is one of the biggest in which the creditors that ultimately took control were also so-called direct lenders — asset managers and funds that provide loans directly to companies.

The deal values Pluralsight at about $900mn, far below the more than $5bn that Vista, its partners and private lenders had invested or lent the business. Vista and its co-investors had sunk roughly $4bn into Pluralsight, while lenders provided it with about $1.7bn of debt financing.

As part of the restructuring the lenders agreed to knock roughly $1.2bn off the $1.7bn of debt and inject fresh cash into the company, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The deal will lead to Vista and the lenders incurring losses after Pluralsight’s business rapidly deteriorated. The negotiations between the two sides broke out into the open earlier this year, sending shockwaves through the broader private credit market.

Vista bought the software education company in 2021 at a time when tech valuations had been buoyed by rock-bottom interest rates. Shortly after the deal closed, Vista bought another business to bolster Pluralsight’s offerings for engineers and programmers focused on cloud computing.

The private equity firm funded both purchases with roughly $1.7bn debt in total provided by private lenders, which also included BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Oaktree, Franklin Templeton’s Benefit Street Partners and Golub Capital.

Vista shuffled some of Pluralsight’s assets around earlier this year in a bid to buy time in the negotiations. But in doing so it riled up the creditors, who believed control of the company should have been handed over earlier.

The $800bn direct lending industry had long been marketed as having stronger lender protections than traditional high-yield bond and leveraged loan markets. Pluralsight tested that thesis, although lenders ultimately were able to take control without some of the fighting usually seen in public markets.

The troubles at the company have also raised questions about the quality of the loans being extended by private credit investors, as well as whether they had been reckless in some of their novel financings — such as a loan based on Pluralsight’s revenue growth instead of profits. Regulated banks are restricted from providing these kinds of loans, which are seen to be excessively risky.

When the US Federal Reserve began raising interest rates a year after the buyout, software valuations began to tumble and debt that had been taken out during the period of near-zero rates became onerous to pay back.

Many of Pluralsight’s biggest clients were also hit, with scores of technology companies laying off staff, or slowing hiring. Customer churn rose and Pluralsight’s revenues began to slide last year.

Oaktree, Ares, Benefit Street, BlackRock, Blue Owl, Goldman, Golub, Pluralsight and Vista declined to comment.

Bloomberg earlier on Thursday reported a deal had been reached.