2024 Political Digital Advertising Report

Strategy Gap: An Always-On Game

Much has been made of the 2024 election—from candidate personalities and policy positions to record-breaking expenditures and consequential outcomes. Yet detailed analysis of how campaigns spent their money—particularly in the digital realm—has been largely absent from post-election discussions.

This election wasn't just won at the ballot box—it was won in the years-long battle for America's information ecosystem. The cost of all federal elections was $15.9B overall¹, with Democrats outspending Republicans by $400M in the presidential race alone, but the Right understood what Democrats missed: political persuasion is now an always-on game that requires year-round investment, platform-native creative, and continuous audience building. While Democrats treated 2024 as a campaign-season sprint, Republicans had already spent years shaping the conversation.

Our comprehensive analysis of 2024 digital spending patterns, combined with insights from managing hundreds of campaigns and one of the largest digital only voter turnout programs, reveals the stark strategic divide that shaped this election. While political advertising as a whole lags dangerously behind commercial marketing practices—allocating just 36% of media spend to digital² compared to 78% in the commercial world^{3, 4}—Republicans maximized their impact through year-round investment and strategic platform allocation. The data tells a clear story: this wasn't a money problem, it was a strategy problem that demands fundamental change.

Part 1: The political digital landscape

Political Advertising's Digital Deficit: Falling Further Behind Commercial Standards

In 2024, commercial advertisers allocated 78% of their media budgets to digital^{3, 4}. Political advertisers? Just 36%. While the allocation to digital in politics has grown since 2020, the gap between how commercial and political advertisers spend on digital media has widened—from 36 percentage points in 2020 to 42 in 2024⁵. In other words,  they are further behind than they were 4 years ago.

The 36% digital allocation that defines political digital advertising would be considered outdated in any commercial context— but it was a double disadvantage for Democrats. Commercial brands recognize that consumer decision-making happens continuously through social feeds, streaming platforms, and digital touch points — not just during peak shopping seasons. Republicans partially mitigated the industry-wide shortfall through year-round investment and strategic allocation, maintaining consistent presence even within constrained digital budgets while Democrats continued the traditional boom-bust spending pattern.

The Costly Cycle of Seasonal Spending: Off-Year Investment Matters

For decades, political campaigning operated on a seasonal calendar—dormant between elections, then surging to life 3-9 months before Election Day. That model became obsolete when the news cycle moved from nightly to always-on and social media created direct, constant access to voters. The Right, especially Trump, recognized that persuasion is no longer about last-minute convincing, but about shaping beliefs continuously—building trust, shifting opinions, and staying visible through frequent engagement– just like commercial brand building. Democrats may acknowledge this shift but continue treating digital communication as a campaign-season sprint.

The data tells the story. From 2020–2025, leading right-wing advocacy groups and media companies decreased spending on Meta by just -3% in off years. Similar left-wing orgs slashed spending by -75% during the same periods.

In Q1 2025, the trend continued, with right-wing groups outspending left-wing counterparts by 3.5X.

‍

Building Owned Audiences: Right-Wing Dominance Across Digital Platforms

This understanding of always-on media extends to owned audiences. Two leading right-wing media companies—PragerU and The Daily Wire—have more than 2X the followers on Instagram and 1.5X the subscribers on YouTube, than the top left-wing media companies that advertise on digital platforms, Courier Newsroom and NowThis Impact. If you include The Daily Wire’s five currently featured speakers and podcasters, those numbers rise to more than 8X on Instagram and more than 6X on Youtube. Even with left-leaning MeidasTouch—the top podcast in the U.S. right now—added to the mix, top right-wing groups still have over 6X as many Instagram followers and 3X as many YouTube subscribers.

Right-wing groups have each built sustained, year-round digital operations to acquire more subscribers. They are likely benefitting from far lower ad costs in off-years, while Courier Newsroom and NowThisImpact follow the traditional boom-and-bust campaign spending pattern. NowThisImpact, a newcomer to the top political spenders list, spent $5 million on Meta in 2024 but has invested only $1,000 so far in 2025. PragerU, on the other hand, ranks as the tenth biggest spender on Meta overall, investing $1.5M in just the last 90 days. 

‍

Right-Wing Voices Dominate POdcasting In The United States

A similar right-wing advantage exists in podcasting—now a $2 billion industry that's grown 156% since 2020, according to IAB⁶. Right-wing content dominates. As of December 2024, right-wing podcasts had nearly 3X the audience of left-wing ones. In April 2025, four of the top 10 podcasts overall in the US featured right-wing voices, according to Podscribe⁷ rankings. That’s not just political podcasts, that's out of all podcasts. Only one—MeidasTouch—was left-wing, and it didn’t gain traction until after the election.

In 2024, 17 of the top 20 partisan podcasts were hosted by right-wing figures, according to a Media Matters study⁸. Top hosts including Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson regularly featured each other and other right-wing hosts, creating a self-reinforcing network and fueling growth through cross-promotion.

‍

The Persuasion Gap: Why Democratic Tactics Fall Short

Traditional TV ads (even when placed online) 6-12 months before election day, mail postcards and occasional door-knocking can't alone compete with today's digital ecosystem—where influencers and partisan media are in voters' ears every week for hours at a time and dominating their social media feeds with content tailored to reinforce existing beliefs. By the time an election year arrives, voters have already received consistent messaging for years from their go-to sources, not just from official campaign and party channels.

Political persuasion has fundamentally changed. Smaller, down-ballot campaigns still benefit significantly from in-cycle digital persuasion and awareness ads because they receive comparatively little coverage —so awareness is key. For presidential and major federal and statewide races, however, the persuasion groundwork is now laid years in advance through partisan media ecosystems. The Trump campaign didn't need the same massive persuasion push in 2024 as the Democrats. The work was already done.

This Isn't a Money Problem, It's a Strategy Problem

The spending numbers reveal a striking contrast: The Trump campaign spent nearly 3X less than the Harris campaign on Meta, Google, and connected TV (CTV) combined⁹. But raw spending totals only tell part of the story—how those dollars were allocated reveals a crucial strategic difference.

When we break down digital spending across persuasion (convincing people to vote for you), fundraising (raising money for a campaign), and mobilization (getting people to get out and vote) categories, a clear pattern emerges: Trump was more focused on mobilization. Harris spend $400M more than Trump in total but only $8M more on digital mobilization⁹. In percentage terms, 9% of Trump's digital budget went to mobilization efforts, while Harris allocated just 4.6% to getting voters to the polls.

Different digital channels excel at achieving different objectives. Meta is better at driving immediate action —which is key for mobilization, while CTV is really better for broad persuasion messaging. The Trump team and Elon Musk leveraged this channel differentiation strategically, concentrating resources where they would have maximum impact.

On Meta, this strategic focus is unmistakable—Trump spent 41% of his budget on mobilization, while Harris allocated 13% to mobilization. Elon Musk's AmericaPAC showed similar precision, directing 83% of its Meta spend to mobilization. The 2024 spending patterns reveal that Trump and his allies matched channel strengths to campaign priorities with remarkable discipline. They chose specific platforms based on what each one was best at—for example, using Meta to encourage people to get out and vote—making sure every channel played a clear role in achieving their goals.

Some will argue the Harris campaign's heavy focus on persuasion was necessary given her late entry. This misses the crucial point: persuasion shouldn't begin a few months before Election Day. It requires continuous engagement throughout the four-year cycle with candidates, left-wing groups and other advocates building the brand and the relationship with voters.

Political Campaigns Are Treating CTV Like It's Just Another TV Screen. And It's Not.

Winning doesn’t mean your strategy is flawless. Both Trump and Harris showed lack of strategic investment in platform-specific content on CTV and YouTube. We reviewed hundreds of ads and found both parties frequently ran the exact same spots across CTV, YouTube, and broadcast. While TV spots can run on digital, relying on that alone isn’t an effective strategy built to win in today’s media landscape. This presents a major opportunity for Democrats to differentiate and excel by developing state-of-the-art strategies.

So while it is true that digital political ad spending grew in 2024, CTV captured virtually all of the growth and it's being treated as a mere extension of broadcast. This means that almost half (49 cents) of every presidential campaign dollar donated went to TV-style ads⁹.

CTV and YouTube aren’t just broadcast TV on a different device—they each require a different approach. What works on TV often feels out of place or gets skipped entirely on digital platforms.

Commercial marketers understand the difference. As U.S. CTV ad spend surged 234% from $9 billion to $29.5 billion between 2020-2024, according to eMarketer¹⁰, brands created platform-specific content recognizing the unique viewing behaviors on each platform. You can see in the image below that Meta ran a very different ad during the Super Bowl than they do on YouTube shorts.

Political campaigns, however, continue treating digital video as merely another screen for broadcasting the same messages—widening the gap between commercial marketing innovation and political digital strategy. We believe this is partially an incentive problem, largely explained by how media consultants are paid– as a percentage of dollars spent. It's far more profitable to repurpose existing TV creative across digital platforms than to invest in platform-specific content production.  

‍

Part 2: 2024 TFC Program Learnings

Tech for Campaigns is focused on bringing commercial digital marketing and data best practices to the highest-ROI opportunities to fight extremism and change electoral outcomes. Our work centers on two core programs:

• Digital Voter Turnout: Reaching low-propensity Democrats to vote early or by mail. These voters lean Democratic but are less likely to vote at all, making them high-impact targets.
• Digital Campaign Services: Equipping state-level swing-district campaigns with top-tier digital talent and strategies from the commercial world

In the section that follows, we share key data-backed insights from these programs that reveal what actually worked—and what didn't—in the 2024 digital battleground.

Turning Clicks Into Voters With Data Driven Digital Marketing

We run the largest digital turnout program on Meta to turn out low-propensity Democratic voters in key swing states, bringing commercial best practices—like data-driven targeting, platform-specific creative, and rapid optimization—to the political world.

In 2024, our Digital Voter Turnout program ran in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin—critical states that decided the presidential race and had key races at both the state and federal levels. We reached 15.6 million people and signed up over 263,000 to vote early or by mail. We tested over 300 pieces of creative across platforms including Meta, YouTube, and Reddit. Meta continues to be a high-performing platform for mobilization, because it drives quick, measurable actions. Here are a few key things we learned from our testing:

Abortion Messaging Didn’t Drive TurnoUT

In the 2024 presidential election, ads focused on reproductive rights were 1.8x more expensive to convert than our average and 3–5x more expensive than our top-performing creative, even in states with abortion on the ballot. This doesn’t mean people don’t care about abortion. It means abortion messaging may not effectively mobilize low-propensity Democrats. We saw similar results when we tested abortion messaging for mobilization ads in 2022, reinforcing that this isn’t a one-time finding.

Reminder: Non-English Language Ads Require a Distinct Strategy

Creative that performed exceptionally well in English often flopped completely in Spanish—and vice versa—even within the same state. Some of our strongest-performing Spanish ads were some of our worst performing English ads.

It might sound obvious, but it bears repeating that treating non-English language audiences and ads as their own segment, not simply translating, is essential, as is constantly testing and making data driven updates.

AI Generated Content Delivered Surprising Results

In 2025 we worked to turnout key voters for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and tested AI creators vs human creators (UGC) creators in a head-to-head test. AI creators tied human UGC creators on click-through and conversion rates but won on cost-efficiency of signing up our target audience.

‍Platform and format mattered. AI creatives saw 2x higher CTR on Facebook vs. Instagram, likely due to higher visibility of AI disclaimers on Instagram and the different audiences on each platform. AI-generated static images outperformed video, in part due to varying disclaimer requirements–video requires disclaimers in Wisconsin, images don’t. That and AI static images are just more believable, on average, than AI videos (for now).

Overall, good ideas win. Strong concepts performed well across both AI and human formats, while weak concepts underperformed regardless of the creator. In other words, AI can’t save a bad concept.

‍

Down-Ballot Digital: Cost Efficiency Is Unmatched

In 2024, our Digital Campaign Services program supported 150+ campaigns across 14 states with 300+ digital projects. We helped defend majorities in the Pennsylvania and Minnesota Houses, broke GOP supermajorities in the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate, and flipped a Michigan Supreme Court seat.

The cost efficiency gap between digital and traditional media hasn't just persisted—it's become a competitive advantage for savvy down-ballot campaigns. As the graph shows, while Meta CPMs have increased slightly since 2020 (from $13.08 to $16.47), they remain dramatically below broadcast TV ($43.35) and cable ($22.10)^{11, 12}. Google continues to be the most cost-efficient channel at just $3.50 per thousand impressions—virtually unchanged since 2020.

But these CPM comparisons actually understate digital's advantage for smaller campaigns. When campaigns buy TV—whether broadcast or cable—they're forced to purchase entire Designated Market Areas (DMAs) that extend far beyond state legislative district boundaries. This means in a typical state legislative race, upwards of 70-85% of a TV buy reaches people who can't even vote for that candidate. Digital eliminates much of this waste with finer grain targeting abilities.

We looked at "Effective CPM for In-District Voters" and found that digital is between 14X-65X more cost effective than broadcast when accounting for targeting inefficiency.

Combined with the ability to test in much smaller dollar buys and drive immediate action—whether that's finding voting information, learning about a candidate, or donating—digital's efficiency advantage becomes even more pronounced.

In down-ballot races often decided by just a few hundred votes, reaching the right voters within tight budget constraints isn't just cost-effective—it's often the difference between winning and losing.

Influencers Down ballot Deliver 5-9x Higher Engagement

As part of our focus on bringing commercial digital marketing best practices to politics, we ran, to our knowledge, the only influencer marketing program focused on state legislative races. We partnered with nano and micro influencers—focused on lifestyle, education, and local topics—who typically don’t post political content. Each influencer posted once or twice about TFC candidates. On average, their posts about TFC candidates saw 5–9x higher engagement than their usual content.

Putting paid support behind these posts was crucial and significantly increased their impact. Ads that used influencer content saw a 42% higher engagement rate than standard state legislative ad creative, demonstrating the power of leveraging trusted local voices in down-ballot races.

‍

A Wake Up Call, Not Just Data Points

This is our fourth comprehensive cycle report analyzing digital political advertising, and we're moving beyond merely documenting that the political world is far behind the commercial world, where Democrats lag behind Republicans (particularly Trump) or sharing learnings from our test and learn structure so a larger audience can benefit. The 2024 election results demand more than observation—they require action. The disadvantage Democrats face isn't just tactical; it's structural, strategic, and increasingly existential.

We don't claim to have every answer in terms of go forward strategy, but the data points to several clear imperatives. Year-round investment rather than cyclical surges, strategic allocation toward mobilization, and building owned audience channels have all proven important—in both the political and commercial spheres. Increased digital investment is also crucial for seizing opportunities where neither party has achieved mastery. Connected TV and YouTube represent prime examples: Democrats could begin to differentiate by developing truly platform-native content strategies, since both parties currently treat these channels like traditional broadcast. Just as vital is identifying and leveraging emerging trends and platforms before they become mainstream—like Republicans did with podcasting years ago—and understanding the messages that resonate. Doing this requires a test and learn mindset and always on operation. The next wave of digital innovation is already forming.

Yet implementing these changes requires overcoming institutional inertia and embracing new approaches. Too often, the Democratic ecosystem acknowledges that current methods aren't working while struggling to make meaningful structural changes. Simply increasing funding to replicate Republican tactics from the last cycle won't be sufficient—nor will continuing to rely primarily on the same networks of talent. Successful right-wing influencers emerged largely organically outside party structures, not through top-down creation. Most critically, without developing systematic ways to constantly test and refine tactics, messaging, and platform strategies beyond traditional polling—even the best digital tactics will fall short.

The findings in this report aren't meant to disparage, but to sound an alarm. The digital landscape doesn't pause between election cycles, and neither should Democratic outreach and audience building. The stakes are too high and the opportunity cost of inaction too great to continue with business as usual.

Thank you!

The Tech for Campaigns data and marketing teams analyzed extensive data and uncovered powerful insights to produce this groundbreaking report. Thanks to our data pros, Jessica Sanders and Jeff Sloan.

We are also grateful to members of our incredible 19,000+ skilled volunteer community, Caroline Blodi and Michelle Lachman, who contributed to the visuals in this report.

‍

‍

Methodology and Resources

Tech for Campaigns analyzed FEC data, Meta ads data, and Google ads data to understand the political digital landscape. We reviewed the data from the hundreds of state legislative campaigns our Digital Campaigns Services team worked on in 2024 and our 2024 Digital Voter Turnout program data. In addition, we utilized the following resources:

1. OpenSecrets Cost of Election‍
2. AdImpact Cycle in Review
3. eMarketer US digital ad spend to exceed $300 billion in 2024
4. Statista Share of digital in advertising spending in the United States from 2017 to 2029
5. Tech for Campaigns 2022 Political Digital Advertising Report
6. IAB report: Digital Ad Revenue Surges 15% YoY in 2024, Climbing to $259B, According to IAB
7. Podscribe Industry Ranker
8. Media Matters - The right dominates the online media ecosystem, seeping into sports, comedy, and other supposedly nonpolitical spaces
9. AdHawk
10. eMarketer US connected TV (TV) Ad Spending, 2019-2024
11. Media Dynamics, Inc. TV’S 2023-24 PRIMETIME UPFRONT: CPMs UP BIG TIME; NOT SO AD DOLLARS‍
12. TV’S 2021-22 PRIMETIME UPFRONT: CPMs UP BIG TIME; NOT SO AD DOLLARS

‍

** Meta Ads data top 10 advocacy groups and top 2 media groups: Courier Newsroom, NowThis, Daily Wire, Prager U, AARP, Defending Democracy Together, Working America, Majority Forward, Voter Participation Center, Women Vote!, Voto Latino Inc., SEIU, SEIU COPE, VoteVets, One Nation American Petroleum Institute, Judicial Watch, National Rifle Association, Facts for Peace LLC, American Action Network Inc, Libertas Institute, Stand Together Chamber of Commerce Inc., American Federation for Children