How Harris and Trump are sprinting their TV advertising to Election Day

CNN
—

The campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump made strategic adjustments to the content of their television advertising between August and September, a CNN analysis of ad tracking data shows, amid a contentious battle to define the changing race for the White House.

The focus shifted on key issues including abortion, immigration and crime, with the Harris campaign moving away from defensive ads that emphasized the vice president’s background in law enforcement and the Trump campaign focusing on economic appeals – the main theme for the voters in this election.

Advertising tracking company AdImpact catalogs the topics referenced in TV campaign spots and tracks the amount of money behind those spots. Comparing changes over the last two months highlights how each campaign tailored its message and shows the proportion of campaign resources dedicated to highlighting different issues.

In August, Harris’ first full month as a candidate since taking over from Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, her campaign spent $24.5 million on crime-focused ads – nearly half of the roughly 52 $.4 million total spent on television advertising. According to AdImpact data, crime was the top theme in Harris’ ads this month as her campaign aimed to temper Republicans’ fierce criticism of Harris’ previous work as California’s attorney general and San Francisco’s district attorney.

In September, the Harris campaign’s spending on crime-related advertising fell to just $28,000, less than 1% of its monthly television ad spending.

At the same time, the Harris campaign poured more advertising dollars into discussing abortion, a key issue for many Democratic and independent voters since Roe v. Wade was overthrown and strict restrictions on the procedure were enacted in predominantly Republican-led states. In August, the Harris campaign spent $7.8 million on abortion-related TV ads, about 15% of its total spending that month. In September, that total rose to $25 million and the share doubled to 32%, ranking second among issues referenced in Harris ads.

Economic issues also dominated Harris’ campaign advertising in August and September. Taxes were among the top issues referenced in Harris campaign ads in both months, accounting for 37% of spending in August and 40% in September.

While outside pro-Trump groups continue to emphasize immigration and crime in scathing attack ads, the Trump campaign itself has made significant changes to its messaging budget in the past two months, placing economic issues increasingly at the forefront.

In August, the Trump campaign spent about $15.5 million on immigration-related TV ads, accounting for about 41% of its monthly TV spending. In September, that total dropped dramatically to just $10,500, less than 1% of the Trump campaign’s total television spending. Crime, often mentioned in connection with immigration in the Trump campaign’s sharp attack ads, also fell from 41% in August to less than 1% the following month.

Meanwhile, the campaign funneled even more advertising dollars into the economic message. In August, inflation was the top theme in Trump’s campaign ads, referenced in about 57% of television ads. in September that share rose to 80%. Housing’s share of campaign messaging also increased, accounting for 77% of its television spending in September, up from 20% the previous month.

Advertisements from the Harris and Trump campaigns represent only a portion of the total political advertising targeting the presidential election. Super PACs and other outside groups are also pouring tens of millions of dollars into the airwaves, and their ads feature similar messaging strategies and emphases to those of presidential campaigns.

As their messaging has evolved, campaigns have developed a consistent set of target states for their ads. In the more than two months since Harris entered the race, seven states have emerged as the top contenders — and Democrats have spent more money than Republicans in all seven states.

Including spending by campaigns and allied outside groups on TV, digital and radio platforms, these seven states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada – accounted for nearly $930 million of a total of more than 1, $1 million Billions were spent on presidential campaign advertising between July 22, the day after Biden withdrew from the race, and the end of September.

Pennsylvania is the linchpin for both sides on the path to 270 electoral votes, and the commonwealth is flooded with advertising money – more than $250 million between July 22 and September 30. Democrats have outspent Republicans in the Keystone State by about $144 million to $105 million over that stretch, and both sides have spent more there than in any other battleground state.

Michigan comes in second, with Democrats again outspending Republicans by about $115 million to $71 million. Democratic investments in Pennsylvania and Michigan far exceed their spending in all other election districts, underscoring the importance of the blue wall states to the party’s electoral strategy.

In third place is Georgia, which has seen about $132 million in advertising since Harris’ nomination. The advertising wars in the Peach State were closer, with Democrats narrowly outspending Republicans by about $66 million to $65 million.

These three states – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia – accounted for approximately $570 million in presidential advertising spending between July 22 and September 30, nearly half (49%) of all such spending in these more than two months.

Wisconsin and Arizona are the other two states that have collectively spent more than $100 million on advertising since Harris was nominated, and in both states, Democrats have outspent Republicans by at least $10 million on advertising. Democrats also outperformed Republicans in North Carolina and Nevada, rounding out the top seven battlegrounds.

Another target of excessive advertising spending was deep-red Nebraska, which has one electoral vote up for grabs in a state that has some of its electoral votes divided by congressional districts. Democrats have spent more than $8 million on advertising there, while Republicans have made a minimal investment of just over $200,000.

Campaigns and outside groups routinely book advertising time well in advance, and both parties have reserved hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of advertising time leading up to Election Day. The numbers will change as more money flows in and spending targets are updated, but by early October Democrats were poised to enjoy a significant advantage on the airwaves.

Including ad buys from Oct. 1 through the election, Democrats booked about $344 million in ad time, compared to about $225 million for Republicans. The gap is narrower in the seven battleground states, but Democrats still have the edge by $269 million to $222 million (Democratic advertisers also have more than $50 million in national presidential reserves, adding to their overall advantage). .

That dynamic could quickly change as a handful of extremely wealthy and influential megadonors — many of whom have already donated tens of millions of dollars to the super PACs fighting on both sides — have no limits on additional donations. And her willingness to pour millions more into the race could escalate the advertising wars.

All of this has contributed to what AdImpact projects will be the most expensive election in U.S. history, with a total of $10.2 billion in political advertising spending throughout the election cycle. According to the company’s forecasts, this would represent a 13% increase over the previous record of $9.02 billion from the 2020 campaign.