CNN
—
Amid the battle over White House change, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s campaigns made strategic adjustments to the content of their TV ads from August to September, according to a CNN analysis of ad tracking data. Shown.
The emphasis on key issues like abortion, immigration and crime has shifted, the Harris campaign has moved away from advocacy ads highlighting the vice president’s law enforcement background, and the Trump campaign has focused on the top issues for voters in this election. The government was leaning toward an economic appeal.
Ad tracking company AdImpact catalogs the issues mentioned in campaign ads on broadcast television and tracks the dollars behind those spots. Comparing changes over the past two months shows how each campaign is adjusting its messaging and shows the percentage of campaign resources spent highlighting different issues.
In August, Harris’ first full month as a candidate since taking over from Democratic Party leader Joe Biden, her campaign spent $24.5 million on ads mentioning crime, but only on television. That’s nearly half of the roughly $52.4 million total spent on broadcast advertising. . According to data from AdImpact, crime ranked highest in Harris’ ads that month, as her campaign sought to soften fierce Republican criticism of her past career as California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney. .
In September, the Harris campaign’s crime ad spending plummeted to just $28,000, less than 1% of its monthly TV ad spending.
At the same time, the Harris campaign is poised to discuss abortion, an important issue for many Democrats and independent voters since Roe v. Wade was overturned and predominately Republican-led states enacted strict restrictions on abortion procedures. , spent more on advertising. In August, the Harris campaign spent $7.8 million on broadcast TV ads about abortion, about 15% of the month’s total spending. In September, that total increased to $25 million, and the share doubled to 32%, ranking second among issues mentioned in Harris’ ads.
Economic themes also dominated the Harris campaign’s advertising from August to September. Taxes were one of the most mentioned issues in Harris’ campaign ads in both months, accounting for 37% of spending in August and 40% in September.
While pro-Trump outside groups continue to highlight immigration and crime in scathing attack ads, the Trump campaign itself has made significant changes to its messaging budget over the past two months, increasingly emphasizing economic issues.
In August, the Trump campaign spent about $15.5 million on broadcast TV ads on immigration, about 41% of its monthly broadcast TV spending. By September, that total had plummeted to just $10,500, less than 1% of the Trump campaign’s total television broadcast spending. Crimes, which are often mentioned in the Trump campaign’s hard-hitting attack ads related to immigration, also fell from 41% in August to less than 1% the following month.
Meanwhile, the campaign devoted more advertising dollars to economic messages. In August, inflation became the top issue in Trump campaign ads, mentioning it in about 57% of broadcast TV ads. In September, that share jumped to 80%. The share of housing-related campaign messages also rose, accounting for 77% of TV broadcast spending in September, up from 20% the previous month.
Advertisements from the Harris and Trump campaigns represent only a fraction of the total amount of political advertising targeted at the presidential election. Super PACs and other outside groups are also pouring tens of millions of dollars into the airwaves, and their ads display similar message strategies and include similar emphases as presidential campaigns.
While messages have evolved, campaigns have developed a consistent set of conditions to target advertising. In the more than two months since Harris entered the race, seven states have emerged as the most likely battleground states, with Democratic spending outpacing Republican spending in all seven states.
Including spending from outside parties affiliated with campaigns on television, digital and radio platforms, seven states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada – accounted for $930 million of the total of more than $111. It accounts for nearly a million dollars. More than $1 billion was spent on presidential campaign ads between July 22, the day after Biden withdrew from the race, and the end of September.
Pennsylvania looms as a key point on both sides’ path to 270 electoral votes, with the state receiving more than $250 million in advertising spending from July 22 to September 30. . Democrats outperform Republicans in the Keystone State by about $144 million to $105 million. Both countries spent more in this region than in other battleground states.
Second place was Michigan, where Democrats once again outspent Republicans by about $115 million to $71 million. Democrats’ spending in Pennsylvania and Michigan far exceeds spending in other battleground states, underscoring the importance of “blue wall” states to the party’s electoral strategy.
Georgia came in third, with about $132 million worth of advertising spent on Harris since she became a candidate. The advertising war in the Peach State is a close one, with Democrats narrowly leading Republicans by about $66 million to $65 million.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia combined for nearly $570 million in presidential ad spending from July 22 to September 30, or nearly half (49%) of all spending over the two-month period. ).
Wisconsin and Arizona are two other states where Harris has spent more than $100 million worth of advertising combined since she became a candidate, with Democrats outspending Republicans by at least $10 million in ad spending in both states. It exceeds the dollar. Democrats also outperformed Republicans in North Carolina and Nevada, closing out seven battleground states.
Another target of exorbitant advertising spending is deep-red Nebraska, where every electoral vote is at stake in a state that divides some of its electors into congressional districts. Democrats spent more than $8 million on advertising, while Republicans made a minimal investment of just over $200,000.
Campaigns and outside groups routinely book advertising time well in advance, with both parties having booked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising time leading up to Election Day. The numbers will likely change as more money flows in and spending targets are updated, but going into October, Democrats were poised to enjoy a significant broadcast advantage.
Including ad buys covering the period from Oct. 1 through the election, Democrats have booked about $344 million worth of ad time, compared to about $225 million for Republicans. Although the gap has narrowed across the seven battleground states, Democrats still have a $269 million to $222 million advantage (Democratic advertisers also hold more than $50 million in presidential reserves nationwide). (which contributes to its overall superiority).
This dynamic is difficult because a handful of extremely wealthy and influential mega-donors, many of whom have already given tens of millions of dollars to super PACs competing on both sides, face no restrictions on additional contributions. Things can change quickly. And their drive to bring millions more into the race could escalate the ad war.
All of these are contributing to AdImpact’s project, which is set to be the most expensive election in U.S. history, totaling $10.2 billion in political ad spending on the top and bottom of the ballot. This represents a 13% increase over the previous record of $9.02 billion set during the 2020 campaign, according to the company’s projections.
