The lopsided (digital) US election

WELCOME TO A BONUS EDITION OF DIGITAL POLITICS. I'm Mark Scott, and sometimes, I still miss my life as a journalist — especially when this type of story is just born to be written.

Let's get started:

— With just under seven weeks to go before November's election in the United States, something strange is afoot in how both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are spending on digital ads.

— I wanted to unpick what is actually happening — and why we may be seeing a significant shift in the importance of paid-for messages on Meta's platforms and those owned by Google.

— All the data below comes from WhoTargetsMe, a nonprofit organization that has the best independent data tools for analzying Meta and Google political ads. Check them out here, and sign up to WhoTargetsMe's newsletter here.

Harris is crushing Trump on digital ads. But does it matter?

KAMALA HARRIS AND DONALD TRUMP are in non-stop campaigning mode ahead of Nov. 5. Ever since the US vice-president took over the Democratic Party nomination from Joe Biden, she has out fundraised her Republican Party rival in July, alone, $204.5 million to $47.5 million, respectively. Between Jan. 1, 2023 and July 31, 2024, the most recent data available from the US Federal Election Commission, the Biden-then-Harris ticket has pocketed $516.8 million compared to Trump's $268.5 million cash pile.

Harris has been quick to take advantage. Yes, not all campaigning is done via social media. But if we look over the last three-months across Meta and Google, the Democratic candidate has outspent her opponent by a factor of 12, on Facebook and Instagram combined, and by a factor of two, on Google's services.

In short, if November's election came down to pure political ad-buys, then Harris would be walking the 2024 campaign.

Even when WhoTargetsMe extended its analysis to include Republican and Democratic Party-affiliated groups, left-leaning efforts still far outmatched those on the right of politics. The nonprofit manually defined where individual Meta and Google ad buyers sat on the political spectrum, so take the below figures with a (slight) pinch of salt.

But, on average, Democratic Party-linked and progressive groups are miles ahead in flooding social media with paid-for messages versus their Republican-affiliated counterparts.

It's not even close.

When we drill down on the top 10 ad buyers — this time, over the last 30 days, to take into account last week's debate and a final push ahead of Nov. 5 — the trend continues.

Part of this is down to Democrats just having more money to spend than Republicans. But when you look at how the Trump and Harris campaigns are spending their cash, their different strategies are stark.

Based on my analysis of Meta's separate library of political ads, Trump is primarily targeting national fundraising efforts, with little direct targeting of crucial swing states. His ads solely focused on Pennsylvania, for instance, represent just 0.1 percent of the total for the last seven days (through Sept 14, the latest data available.)

Significantly more money was allocated to drumming up crowds for his rallies in Uniondale, New York and Wilmington, North Carolina.

Harris' campaign has taken a more regional approach. Yes, they are still earmarking about 50 percent of their Meta ad buys for nationwide fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts. But between 4-6 percent of her paid-for political messaging is dedicated, individually, to key swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

The picture for political ads bought on Google is a little more nuanced. Again, Harris and her affiliates are outpacing Trump and his allies. But it's a significantly closer battle than on Meta's platforms.

The geographical breakdown on where the campaigns are targeting their Google ads also shows a primary — and not unsurprising — focus on swing states. Yet Harris is also using these digital messages to fundraise in well-populated safe blue states like California and New York, respectively.

Conventional wisdom dictates, based on the above figures, that Harris should be home dry. Whoever spends more on (digital) ads typically has a political advantage, though Trump's 2016 campaign showed that a better understanding of how to target swing voters, with less money, can equally prove successfully.

The thing is, the polls are still neck-and-neck. Take a look here, here and here.

There are many reasons for this — and I'm not an expert in the everyday twist and turns of domestic US politics to unpick that. But Harris' overwhelming lead in digital ad buys has not translated, yet, into a significant dominance in the offline presidential race. That may still shift, either way, as the campaigns increase their spending in the final weeks of the campaign.

But it's an example of how the online campaigning world is not what it once was.

Now, viral politically-minded (and non-paid) TikTok videos, online endorsements from social media influencers and other forms of digital advertising (via the likes of streaming services) are muddying the water after years when political operatives turned almost exclusively to Meta and Google to get out their messages.

That does not diminish the need for politicians to spend, and spend big, with these Big Tech giants. They still dominate the world of digital political advertising. But the 2024 US presidential election cycle highlights the disconnect between spending big on these online paid-for messages and potential success at the polls.

Something is shifting in people's digital habits. My bet: we're all becoming less willing to stop and watch social media ads than we were four years ago. Whatever the answer, it's a trend that will likely continue well after November's US election.