10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as

Democrats Struggle
By Matthew Rosenberg and Kevin Roose

Oct. 20, 2019, 3:00 a.m. ET

On any given day, the Trump campaign is plastering ads all over Facebook, YouTube and
the millions of sites served by Google, hitting the kind of incendiary themes — immigrant
invaders, the corrupt media — that play best on platforms where algorithms favor
outrage and political campaigns are free to disregard facts.

Even seemingly ominous developments for Mr. Trump become fodder for his campaign.
When news broke last month that congressional Democrats were opening an
impeachment inquiry, the campaign responded with an advertising blitz aimed at firing
up the president’s base.

The campaign slapped together an “Impeachment Poll” (sample question: “Do you agree
that President Trump has done nothing wrong?”). It invited supporters to join the Official
Impeachment Defense Task Force (“All you need to do is DONATE NOW!”). It produced
a slick video laying out the debunked conspiracy theory about former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment battle
(“Learn the truth. Watch Now!”).

The onslaught overwhelmed the limited Democratic response. Mr. Biden’s campaign put
up the stiffest resistance: It demanded Facebook take down the ad, only to be rebuffed. It
then proceeded with plans to slash its online advertising budget in favor of more
television ads.

That campaigns are now being fought largely online is hardly a revelation, yet only one
political party seems to have gotten the message. While the Trump campaign has put its
digital operation firmly at the center of the president’s re-election effort, Democrats are
struggling to internalize the lessons of the 2016 race and adapt to a political landscape
shaped by social media.

Mr. Trump’s first campaign took far better advantage of Facebook and other platforms
that reward narrowly targeted — and, arguably, nastier — messages. And while the
president is now embattled on multiple fronts and disfavored by a majority of Americans
in most polls, he has one big advantage: His 2020 campaign, flush with cash, is poised to
dominate online again, according to experts on both ends of the political spectrum,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 1/7

10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

independent researchers and tech executives. The difference between the parties’ digital
efforts, they said, runs far deeper than the distinction between an incumbent’s general-
election operation and challengers’ primary campaigns.

The Trump team has spent the past three years building out its web operation. As a sign
of its priorities, the 2016 digital director, Brad Parscale, is now leading the entire
campaign. He is at the helm of what experts described as a sophisticated digital
marketing effort, one that befits a relentlessly self-promoting candidate who honed his
image, and broadcast it into national consciousness, on reality television.

The campaign under Mr. Parscale is focused on pushing its product — Mr. Trump — by
churning out targeted ads, aggressively testing the content and collecting data to further
refine its messages. It is selling hats, shirts and other gear, a strategy that yields yet
more data, along with cash and, of course, walking campaign billboards.

“We see much less of that kind of experimentation with the Democratic candidates,” said
Laura Edelson, a researcher at New York University who tracks political advertising on
Facebook. “They’re running fewer ads. We don’t see the wide array of targeting.”

The Trump campaign, she said, “is like a supercar racing a little Volkswagen Bug.”

The Democrats would be the Volkswagen. The are largely running what other experts
and political operatives compared to brand-loyalty campaigns, trying to sway moderates
and offend as few people as possible, despite mounting research that suggests
persuasion ads have little to no impact on voters in a general election.

The candidates, to be sure, are collectively spending more on Facebook and Google than
on television and are trying to target their ads — Mr. Biden’s tend to be seen by those
born before 1975, for instance, while Senator Bernie Sanders’s are aimed at those born
later. But without the same level of message testing and data collection, the Democrats’
efforts are not nearly as robust as Mr. Trump’s.

[Read more on how Democrats are using Facebook to reach specific voters.]

Democratic digital operatives say the problem is a party dominated by an aging

professional political class that is too timid in the face of a fiercely partisan Republican
machine. The Biden campaign’s decision to tack from digital to television, they say, is
only the most glaring example of a party hung up on the kind of broad-based advertising
that played well in the television age but fares poorly on social media.

The digital director of a prominent Democratic presidential campaign recounted how he

was shut down by an older consultant when pressing for shorter, pithier ads that could
drive clicks. “We don’t need any of your cinéma vérité clickbait,” the consultant snapped,
according to the digital director, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid risking
his job.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 2/7

10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

Other digital consultants and campaign officials told similar stories, and complained that
the Democratic establishment was too focused on winning over imagined moderates,
instead of doing what the Trump campaign has done: firing up its base.

“It’s true that anodyne messaging doesn’t turn anyone off. But it doesn’t turn them on
either,” said Elizabeth Spiers, who runs the Insurrection, a progressive digital strategy
and polling firm.

Republicans are “not messaging around unity and civility, because those things don’t
mobilize people,” Ms. Spiers said, adding that while everyone may want to live in a less
divided country, “nobody takes time off work, gets in their car and drives to the polls to
vote specifically for that.”

Facebook Favors the Angry

Far more than any other platform, Facebook is the focus for digital campaign spending,
and it is in many ways even friendlier turf for Mr. Trump’s campaign than in 2016.

Since then, many younger, more liberal users have abandoned the platform in favor of
Instagram, Snapchat and various private messaging apps, while older users — the type
most likely to vote Republican — are still flocking to Facebook in droves. People over 65
now make up Facebook’s fastest-growing population in the United States, doubling their
use of the platform since 2011, according to Gallup.

In a speech this year in Romania, Mr. Parscale recalled telling his team before the 2016
election that Facebook would allow the campaign to reach the “lost, forgotten people of
America” with messages tailored to their interests.

“Millions of Americans, older people, are on the internet, watching pictures of their kids
because they all moved to cities,” Mr. Parscale said. “If we can connect to them, we can
change this election.”

Facebook also favors the kind of emotionally charged content that Mr. Trump’s campaign
has proved adept at creating. Campaigns buy Facebook ads through an automated
auction system, with each ad receiving an “engagement rate ranking” based on its
predicted likelihood of being clicked, shared or commented on. The divisive themes of Mr.
Trump’s campaign tend to generate more engagement than Democrats’ calmer, more
policy-focused appeals. Often, the more incendiary the campaign, the further its dollars
go.

Provocative ads also get shared more often, creating an organic boost that vaults them
even further ahead of less inflammatory messages.

“There’s an algorithmic bias that inherently benefits hate and negativity and anger,” said
Shomik Dutta, a digital strategist and a founder of Higher Ground Labs, an incubator for
Democratic start-ups. “If anger has an algorithmic bias, then Donald Trump is the
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 3/7
10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

captain of that ship.”

A Facebook spokeswoman disputed the notion that ads got more visibility just because
they were negative, and noted that users were able to flag offending ads for possible
removal.

The company, since the 2016 election, has invested heavily to prevent Russian-style
interference campaigns. It has built up its security and fact-checking teams, staffed a
“war room” during key elections and changed its rules to crack down on misinformation
and false news.

But it has left a critical loophole: Facebook’s fact-checking rules do not apply to political
ads, letting candidates spread false or misleading claims. That has allowed Mr. Trump’s
campaign to show ads that traditional TV networks have declined to air.

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1
billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video’s claims
had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden
campaign’s demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies.

At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million
times.

The 2016 Playbook

In the wake of the 2016 election, some on the left sought an explanation for Mr. Trump’s
victory in the idea that his campaign had used shadowy digital techniques inspired by
military-style psychological warfare — a “Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine,” as one
article described it — created by the defunct political consulting firm Cambridge
Analytica. The theories around Cambridge Analytica have never been fully
demonstrated, however, and there is a far less nefarious explanation: The Trump
campaign simply made better use of standard commercial marketing tools, particularly
Facebook’s own high-powered targeting products.

An internal Facebook report written after the 2016 election noted that both the Trump
and Clinton campaigns spent heavily on Facebook — $44 million for Mr. Trump versus
$28 million for Hillary Clinton. “But Trump’s FB campaigns were more complex,” the
memo said, and were better at using Facebook to bring in donations and find new voters.
For instance, roughly 84 percent of the Trump ads focused on getting voters to take an
action, such as donating, the report said. Only about half of Mrs. Clinton’s did.

At the same time, the Trump campaign sought to tailor its ads more precisely to specific
voters, the report said, with a typical Trump message targeted at 2.5 million people,
compared with eight million for the Clinton campaign. And the Trump team simply made
more unique ads — 5.9 million versus 66,000.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 4/7

10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

“We were making hundreds of thousands” of variations on similar ads, Mr. Parscale told
“60 Minutes” last year. “Changing language, words, colors.”

The idea, he said, was to find “what is it that makes it go, ʻPoof! I’m going to stop and
look.’”

For the left, the Trump campaign’s mastery of social media in 2016 represented a sharp
reversal. From the blogs of the mid-aughts to Netroots Nation, the digital activists who
helped propel Barack Obama to victory in 2008 and 2012, the left was seen as the
dominant digital force. The Democrats had an array of tech-savvy campaign veterans
who were adept at data mining and digital organizing, and had overseen the creation of a
handful of well-resourced digital consulting firms.

Starting with the 2016 primaries, the Trump campaign reversed the trend. While the
more traditionally minded Republican operatives signed on to work for the party’s more
traditional candidates, such as Jeb Bush, the Trump campaign found itself reliant on “the
outliers, and a lot of them truly believed in digital,” said Zac Moffatt, chief executive of
Targeted Victory, a Republican digital strategy firm. “It was a changing of the guard,
strategically.”

The Republicans’ 2020 operation — with more than $150 million in cash on hand,
according to the latest filings — appears to have picked up where it left off.

The Trump campaign’s intense testing of ads is one example. It posts dozens of variations
of almost every ad to figure which plays best. Do voters respond better to a blue button
or a green one? Are they more likely to click if its says “donate” or “contribute”? Will
they more readily cough up cash for an impeachment defense fund or an impeachment
defense task force?

The president’s re-election effort is also making use of strategies common in the e-
commerce world, such as “zero touch” merchandise sales. T-shirts, posters and other
paraphernalia are printed on demand and sent directly to buyers, with the campaign not
required to make bulk orders or risk unsold inventory. Sales of these items amount to a
lucrative source of campaign fund-raising, and the zero-touch technique allows the
campaign to move fast — it was able to start selling T-shirts that say “get over it” a day
after the president’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters to do just than
when it came to Ukraine.

Perhaps most important, the Trump campaign is spending to make sure people see its
ads, emails, texts, tweets and other content. In the week the impeachment inquiry was
announced, for instance, the campaign spent nearly $2.3 million on Facebook and Google
ads, according to data compiled by Acronym, a progressive digital strategy organization
that tracks campaign spending. That is roughly four to five times what it spent on those
platforms in previous weeks, and about half of what most Democratic front-runners have
spent on Facebook and Google advertising over the entire course of their campaigns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 5/7
10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

The president’s team has also invested heavily in YouTube, buying ads and
counterprogramming his opponents. In June, during the first Democratic primary
debates, the Trump campaign bought the YouTube “masthead” — a large ad that runs at
the top of the site’s home page and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per day —
to ensure that debate viewers would see it.

The Trump campaign “is always re-upping their ad buy. As soon as an ad runs out,
another one goes in,” Ms. Edelson said, adding, “No one is waiting for next month’s
marketing budget to kick in.”

Glamour Shots Only

Democrats are struggling to match more than the sheer volume of content coming out of
the Trump campaign. Interviews with Democratic consultants and experts revealed a
party deeply hesitant to match the Trump campaign’s intense and often angry partisan
approach.

Most of the Democratic Party is “not even fighting last year’s war — the war that they’re
fighting is 2012,” said David Goldstein, chief executive of Tovo Labs, a progressive digital
consulting firm.

Mr. Goldstein offered an instructive anecdote from the 2018 midterm elections. That
spring, Tovo signed on to do online fund-raising for Andrew Gillum, the Democratic
candidate for governor in Florida. Tovo wanted to build on the work it had done the year
before in Alabama, where it claimed to have depressed Republican turnout by running
ads that showcased conservatives who opposed the far-right Senate candidate Roy
Moore. The ads did not say they were being run by supporters of the eventual
Democratic winner, Doug Jones.

Mr. Goldstein hoped to bring the same edge to Mr. Gillum’s campaign and came up with
ads that “were really aggressive.”

“We wanted to provoke people,” he said.

One was a particularly buffoonish caricature of Mr. Trump holding the world in his palm.
“As Florida goes in 2018, so goes the White House in 2020,” read the tagline.

The ad was aimed at far-left voters deemed most likely to be motivated by the prospect of
pushing Mr. Trump from office, and the response rate was high, Mr. Goldstein said. But a
few days after it went up, the campaign manager saw it and “freaked out.”

“This is entirely unacceptable,” the campaign manager, Brendan McPhillips, wrote in an

email on April 6, 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 6/7

10/20/2019 Trump Campaign Floods Web With Ads, Raking In Cash as Democrats Struggle - The New York Times

In Mr. Goldstein’s telling, the campaign manager feared offending voters whom Mr.
Gillum hoped to sway. Mr. McPhillips was not mollified when Tovo explained that the ad
was targeted only at voters thought to be deeply anti-Trump. He wanted ads that were
focused on his candidate, not produced to elicit an emotional response with images the
campaign considered crass.

Mr. McPhillips ordered Tovo to immediately stop running the ads. He said Tovo could
only use images approved by the campaign. Tovo left soon thereafter.

The approved images — “standard glamour shots of the candidate” — would work for a
newspaper ad or television spot, Mr. Goldstein said, but were not “going to drive clicks
and provoke people to take action.”

Mr. Gillum narrowly lost the race.

Follow Matthew Rosenberg on Twitter at @AllMattNYT, and Kevin Roose at @kevinroose.

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Under Fire in Washington, Trump
Taps Online Anger

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/us/elections/trump-campaign-ads-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgt… 7/7