Democrats: More digital spending needed for 2020
WASHINGTON— One of the largest outside Democratic groups says increased spending on digital advertising played a key role in midterm battleground races, offering a lesson for potential presidential contenders in 2020.
“You’re going to have to have an organization that speaks directly to voters on their phones and their computers,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, which spearheaded much of the party’s digital effort during the recent midterm elections. “If the presidential candidates do not have that as a central part of their operation, theywill not win.”
Democrats are trying to drawin new voters who are young, diverse and college educated. But at a time when cord-cutting millennial sand theirparents alike are spending more time online, the party remains disproportionately committed to TV advertising, strategists say, a dynamic that could complicate tho see efforts.
“Who is watching broadcast television, who is watching Wheel of Fortune, who is watching Jeopardy? They are older, white and they tend to not be Democratic voters,” said Tim Lim, who worked on the campaigns of former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. “By focusing so much on broadcast TV ads, we are missing crucial audiences to talk to.”
But it’s not just about how much is spent online; it’s about how that money is spent.
While Democrats have been wildly successful at using online advertising to rake in millions in dona- tions and build email contact lists from their base, they’ ve lagged behind Republicans when it comes to winning over new or on-the-fence voters in the digital space, operatives in both parties say.
A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee did not respond to a request for comment. However, there are signs that the party is making improvements.
One bright spot for Democrats was Priorities ’$6.3- million digit thats supported Senator-elect Kyrsten Sinema’s win over GOP Rep. Martha McSally in Arizona, a red state that has shown signs of trending toward Democrats.
The goal was driving up overall turnout, with an additional focus on several key demographic groups, including Latinos and whites without a college degree. One set of slickly produced “social pressure” and motivational ads featured a diverse group of actors making the argument for why voting matters.
At the same time, a separate prong of the campaign was aimed at reducing support for a Green Party candidate who later dropped out and endorsed Sinema — a late-breaking development that was highlighted in online ads.
As evidence the campaign helped, Priorities noted that turnout was up overall and Sinema performed better than Democrats inthe recent past with the groups that were targeted.
“We have defifinitely closed the gap from the previous cycle, but it doesn’t mean we’re entirely there yet,” said Cecil.
Though Democrats are behind when it comes to online advertising, an aversion to big spending on digital is not entirely unique to them when compared to the corporate world. While hard numbers are diffifficult to come by, both parties tend to spend vastly less than is common among corporate advertising clients, where digital spending averages around 40 percent — more than what is normally spent on TV.
It’s also hard to tell how the parties are spending their online advertising dollars because much of the publicly available data does not differentiate between ads geared toward fundraising and email list building versus ads aimed at winning over voters.