Doomscroll

Doomscrolling With Jordan Lieberman
Doomscrolling With Michael Beach

First of all, who are you and what do you do?

I’m John Hall. I’ve been doing digital fundraising and political marketing full-time for 15 years and was a grassroots organizer and statewide campaign manager before that. I spent the largest part of my career at Targeted Victory, and today I run John Hall Strategies, a small digital marketing agency.

Over my career, I’ve helped raise more than $1.6 billion online. I’ve seen this industry from a lot of different angles and watched it change dramatically.

The thing I probably spend the most time thinking about now is where digital goes next. I think the model that worked incredibly well for us for a long time is showing serious flaws.

Alright, John Hall. You’ve been pretty outspoken in recent years about what’s wrong with the online fundraising industry. So let’s start on a positive note: What are we getting RIGHT in 2026?

I am sure this will surprise you, but we get a lot right.

The technology, the data, the ability to process contributions, deploy emails and texts, and analyze behavior are light years ahead of where they were when I started.

The fact that every campaign and organization thinks about online fundraising today is a win and far different from a decade ago.

There are a lot of smart people in our industry. My criticism sometimes gets interpreted as me saying everyone is bad at their jobs and everything is terrible. I don’t believe that at all.

What I think we’ve proven is that Republicans can quickly build operations for monetizing political attention. When big moments happen, we can quickly flood the zone and drive a ton of donations.

Talk about how the GOP online fundraising ecosystem has changed since your days at Targeted Victory. Today we have access to better tools, better data, and an entire cottage industry built around raising money online. But are we actually better fundraisers than we were a decade ago?

We’re more educated fundraisers, and there are a lot more of us, but I’m not sure we’re better fundraisers.

When I first worked in digital, sending emails for a state party in 2007, we had far fewer tools and almost no data. If a candidate or organization wanted to raise money, they had to build a list, create a marketing plan, and hope the lead generation was done properly. Email rentals and rev shares existed, but they were more of a supplement than a dominant channel for fundraising.

Today, a client has access to the entire Republican online donor file on the first day they start their program through rev shares. This creates opportunity, but it also creates enormous competition among everyone in the ecosystem. This also encourages everyone to create content that is as shocking to the recipient as possible to capture attention.

We can also optimize almost everything very easily. We know which topics generate the most revenue, which rev-share vendors perform best with specific hooks, and which psychological appeals are working best at any given moment. The challenge with this high level of optimization is that sometimes it can make you incredibly good at maximizing the wrong thing.

If everyone is measuring success based on how much money they can extract from the same donor pool today, you end up with hundreds of individually rational decisions that collectively destroy the entire market.

That’s basically what I think has happened.

We’ve gotten extraordinarily good at monetizing existing Republican donors. We haven’t gotten nearly as good at creating new ones.

You can see that in the numbers. Democrats have built a much larger grassroots fundraising base. Republicans have built an entire industry around repeatedly monetizing a comparatively smaller one.

We’ve gotten extraordinarily good at monetizing existing Republican donors. We haven’t gotten nearly as good at creating new ones.

I really want to press you on what it takes to build a successful fundraising program right now. There was probably a time when being a Republican senator, having a leadership role and doing regular hits on Fox was enough to make you a national fundraising machine. I’m not sure that’s true anymore. Tell me why I’m wrong. Or do you agree?

Those factors don’t automatically make a program successful.

I think there was a period when the formula was simpler. If you had national television exposure, rented some good lists, and had competent copywriters with a somewhat unique message, you could build a national fundraising program.

That’s much harder today for a lot of reasons, one of which is that attention is much more fragmented.

Being important and getting on news shows isn’t necessarily the same thing as being interesting.

The people who become great online fundraisers generally have something else going on. There’s a reason people care about them beyond the fact that they’re a senator or a candidate for governor. There is a uniqueness that makes them stand out. I think donors generally want to give to something they believe in or a shared vision they want to be part of. The campaign is really the vehicle for that belief.

We have talked about using social media more effectively to build a brand that then translates into better online fundraising. I think social media is an important tool, but it all goes back to having something interesting and captivating to share in the first place.

A great fundraising team can amplify something that’s there. It’s much harder for them to manufacture it from nothing.

Ok so here’s my follow-up to that. Does fundraising have to start much further upstream now? Before we talk about the lists or the copy, do we have to give people a reason to actually care about the candidate? If not, tell me how a fundraising team can overcome a candidate who hasn’t built a real brand or audience of their own.

Yes, and this may be the biggest change in how I think about fundraising.

We used to think about the funnel too narrowly. We talked about online fundraising as more of a math problem and less as an audience and content puzzle to solve. You acquire an email address or phone number, send that person fundraising messages, and try to convert them. It was almost a hammer-to-nail exercise.

The real funnel starts much earlier. Why does someone know who you are in the first place? Why do they care what you have to say? What makes them decide to follow you or give you their email address? And then, once you have it, why would they keep opening your emails? You have to build some kind of relationship before you can expect the fundraising ask to work.

We’ve gotten into the habit of trying to skip all those steps and go directly to the $25 fundraising ask.

I’ve changed my own thinking on lead generation. A few years ago, I argued that donors give you money and leads cost you money. I now think that was too simplistic. A high-quality audience that you’ve built a relationship with can ultimately be much more valuable than people who donated in response to a generic or even misleading fundraising hook.

All the folks raising money by offering rebate checks or requiring a donation to complete a voter verification survey will find this out over time. I believe this is a large reason why the cost of fundraising for Republican organizations keeps going up even as we become more efficient than we have ever been.

If the candidate or organization hasn’t built a brand to anchor to, the fundraising team can help, but there are limits. You can’t email and text your way out of nobody caring.

Take off your fundraiser hat for a second. If you were a general consultant working on a high-profile Senate race, what would you tell the candidate is a more valuable asset: a list with 500,000 emails or an audience of 100,000 engaged voters? How should a campaign think about those things differently?

Reading some into what you are getting at with this question, I’d take the 100,000 engaged voters.

If 100,000 people want to hear what this candidate has to say, that’s an asset in itself. A relationship with a voter is a connection that extends beyond just a marketing channel.

And that’s also why I think campaigns need to stop thinking about their email list, donor file, volunteer list, event attendees, and voter contacts as completely separate assets. Those are all different pieces of the campaign’s relationship with people. Ideally, they should all feed into one place so the campaign can understand the whole relationship rather than just what someone did in a single channel. The asset isn’t the email address or the donor record. The asset is the person and the relationship you have built with them.

You can eventually ask these folks to donate, volunteer, attend an event, share something, vote, or bring other people into the movement. That gives the campaign a lot more optionality than a list of 500,000 email addresses that may or may not even be local.

This gets back to something I’ve argued about local fundraising. Not everyone needs to become a national celebrity. A senator with 100,000 genuinely engaged people in his or her own state may have built something much more durable and valuable than a giant national list assembled through rev shares.

You can’t email and text your way out of nobody caring.

So whose job is it to make a candidate a better fundraiser with a bigger brand? Like, do YOU want to be the person in the room who has to tell a candidate he needs to post more compelling content on Instagram?

That falls on everyone involved.

That’s probably an uncomfortable answer because campaigns are still organized into silos. For many organizations, you have the general consultant and a campaign manager and then communications, digital, finance, political, paid media, polling, and social teams.

The voter doesn’t know any of those silos exist or where what they are seeing, or not seeing, is coming from. They just experience the candidate through the things they see.

The digital fundraiser may need to say, “The problem isn’t the copy. The problem is that we don’t have anything interesting to say,” or, “We need the candidate making more content,” or, “We need to spend money building an audience even though it won’t show a positive fundraising ROI this week.”

That doesn’t mean the fundraiser should become the Instagram content director. But I absolutely think they need to be part of the conversations about content because brand building and fundraising are in the same ecosystem.

If fundraising is downstream from attention and affinity, then the person responsible for fundraising must care about what’s happening upstream.

Last question: If the conventional playbook is getting less effective — acquisition is expensive, donors are fatigued, inboxes are crowded, texts are annoying and overwhelming, etc., etc. — where is the next generation of Republican online donors supposed to come from?

If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn’t have a “small” digital marketing agency.

Seriously, this is the question I think the entire industry should be obsessed with.

New donors aren’t going to magically appear by renting the same list for the one-hundredth time.

We have to go find Republicans who are not currently political donors and give them a reason to become donors.

That means the next generation of acquisition will probably look less like how we do prospecting today and more like political outreach.

This likely means some combination of social, offline events, podcasts, issue advocacy, field organizing, influencer marketing, paid media, direct mail, text, and email. All of that needs to feed into one database. If I attend your event on Monday, watch three of your videos on Tuesday, volunteer on Saturday, and donate two months later, those shouldn’t be four different people in four different systems. That’s one person developing a relationship with the campaign. Everyone in the campaign should be able to understand that relationship and use it to communicate with that person more effectively.

This will also require us to take a different view of acquisition. The biggest lie told to Republican campaigns revolves around “free” prospecting. The over-reliance on rev shares today has created a situation where there is no true online prospecting because everyone is going after the exact same donors, and no one has a true house file because everyone’s house file has major overlap with everyone else’s.

We need to view online and offline activity through the lens of the marketing funnel. If someone watches three videos from a candidate, attends a town hall, signs a petition about an issue they care about, volunteers, or reads emails for six months without donating, that shouldn’t be viewed as a failed conversion simply because they didn’t immediately give $20. They’re at the top of the funnel, and they should be nurtured.

The biggest lie told to Republican campaigns revolves around “free” prospecting.

We need to get much smarter about recognizing behavior and communicating accordingly. Instead of blasting two million people with the same message, we should increasingly be asking what this particular person cares about and what the next logical interaction with them should be. That’s where AI and personalization become enormously important.

And then, once somebody finally does become a donor, we have to stop treating them like an ATM.

We need to thank them, give them information, give them access, and remember what they’ve done. We should never tell someone who donated yesterday that they’ve abandoned the Republican Party because they haven’t donated today or make it seem like a check will be mailed to them if they confirm their address with another donation.

The gist is:

The future of Republican fundraising isn’t figuring out how to get another $17 out of the same donor. It’s figuring out how to create the next donor and then treating that person well enough that they’re still with us ten years from now. Whoever figures that out will be far more successful than the people who churn through the same donors repeatedly.

Thanks for doomscrolling with us, John!

Previously:

Give the people what they want

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 30 Aug 2026 23:00:10 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll, your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! If you missed Doomscrolling With Jordan Lieberman on Thursday, finish reading this and then go check that out!

Now let’s get to some scrolling!

Today's edition of Doomscroll is brought to you by THE tool that helps you search political ad spending by race, candidate and advertiser...Keep scrolling for more.

Thank you to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about the opposition to data centers and its impact in the 2026 Midterms! As to whether the NRSC was right to send that memo to the AI industry…100% of you said heck yes! I’m with you all, there. And 58% of you said you are “very worried” about how the data center issue will impact this year’s elections. Another 33% said you’re “somewhat worried.” Here are some comments:

Textbook industry malpractice. The national Data Center Coalition is impotent in every way possible.
Mark my words. 2026 will be known as the Datacenter Midterms.
The universal opposition against Data Centers is the symptom of the fight against big anything. AI, Bic Tech, Big anything. If the industry does not manage to reposition Data Centers to be viewed as a contributor to the communities that they are, the country will have a hard time to stay ahead.

Local community sentiment against data centers is at an all time high. Heatmap published an update poll last week highlighting 74% of Americans are now against data centers. We’ve seen elections get swayed already based on the data center conversation. In Calvert County, MD there was a data center moratorium vote a few months ago where it got shot down 3-2. Then comes the primary election in MD and all three county commissioners who voted against the moratorium lost their primary to opponents who ran after the moratorium vote. Data center developers AND operators like Google, AWS, Meta, etc. need to do more about educating around data center topics. Not national educating, but locally around the communities they want to build data centers in.

The more money that companies with interests related to data centers spend, is money that GOP-affiliated groups and candidates don’t have to spend. They should have skin in the game. But also, this is a two-fold issue IMO: 1) people are afraid of what they don’t know and 2) concerns around data centers seem to be related to affordability concerns.
Data centers spent a decade operating like a mafia, and the public finally started to figure it out. Three months of positive messaging isn’t going to turn it around, but they need a wake up call that they can’t operate in the dark anymore.
Similarly to Flock cameras, data centers are receiving a lot of heat online about a multitude of factors. Some of that heat is overblown by the chronically online. The problem the AI industry faces is that there is no consistent message throughout the industry about the positives that come along with data centers (property tax breaks, local infrastructure improvements, national security buffering) as well as no consistent message about what they content as fake news about the industry (environmental concerns, backroom deals for property, replacement of farmland, higher energy costs). Side note: Republicans are having issues messaging with this because, in a midterm where it is easy to blame current conditions on the party in power, they are the ones currently in control. In addition, at a time when energy costs are rising for the individual consumer, the need for data centers is rising as well, creating an obvious “boogyman” to message against.
First, this issue shows how Pavlov-dog like the GOP is toward Big Business/Tech. It jumps on the hot-new issue without thinking -- that’s what money/bribery will do. If Republicans were smart -- a big stretch ---, they would jump on the anti-data center movement because that is the wave of the future. The public is ignorant -- but not stupid. The memo shows that the NRSC believes that the public can be manipulated into changing its mind on this toxic subject despite the facts, the data, and the reality that the public has already shifted -- rightfully -- against the AI/DC regime, which came out of nowhere as with Trump’s Iran war. Secondly, the operative section of the memo -- “State of play: Republicans say in the memo, headlined “Ohio Data Center Risk,” that it’s up to AI companies to improve perceptions of data centers by explaining “who benefits, who pays, and why a community should want one.” AYKM?!? For the typically-clueless and bought-off NRSC pols to push a PR campaign to include “why a community should want [a data center] one” reveals the source of the stench on this issue. In short, the national GOP is completely detached from reality -- as usual. In fact, there is NO reason for a community to want a data center…there is the fundamental, bottom-line issue -- DCs don’t benefit the public. They benefit Big Tech.

I’m kind of intrigued by who left that last comment (which I had to edit down it was so long!). Definitely didn’t know I had such passionate anti-data center, anti-GOP readers! I mean, thank you for being here! But I don’t know…you really don’t think data centers benefit the public at all? Did you type that missive on your iPhone or what? Just asking - from one friend to another! xoxo

Alright, ya’ll. This week’s One Question is about…social media. Big picture: Has social media been a net positive or a net negative for society? In light of this week’s massive Meta settlement (more on that below), I think it’s a question we should all be grappling with right now. And for those of us who do digital (aka most of us!) - I’d say it’s a fairly complicated question. At least it is for me. I’ve always said social media is a tool that’s not inherently good or bad. Its value depends on the user. So to argue that it’s been a net negative overall is more of an indictment of humanity than it is of one single company or social media app…right? At least that’s how I tend to look at it. Or you could argue that even if users have the best of intentions when they open Instagram, it’s not our fault we’re sucked in by an addictive algorithm designed by a corporation that figured out how to trigger dopamine releases that keeps us engaged longer so they can make billions of dollars while treating our brains like slot machines…Anyway, where do you guys fall?

Share your thoughts

The above quote comes from the open letter Meta published after it settled a massive lawsuit with 47 states and the District of Columbia over allegations it knowingly violated the law to gather data on kids AND endangered them by allowing them to use an addictive product. The company has agreed to pay up to $17 billion in penalties. A lot of money…but an amount we all know Meta will absorb just fine. Here’s the thing: Do I think the product changes Meta has agreed to are all good things? Assuming they figure out how to enforce age limits and safety guidelines in a non-weird, non--intrusive way…yes. I think things like not sending notifications during school hours or when kids are supposed to be sleeping is a good thing. Kids can’t protect themselves. We need to do it for them. Full stop. But the cynic in me can’t help but be simultaneously irritated and a little impressed by the game theory here. Think about it: Meta spent years denying it was making a product that harms people. It gets sued. It finally settles and cops to a certain degree of responsibility. But in doing so it attempts to spin the narrative by claiming the moral high ground, calling themselves a leader in pioneering child safety (lol), and pressuring TikTok and YouTube to also make changes and admit some culpability because why should Meta have to be the only company to forfeit its ownership of the brains of the global youth population? Do I have this right? The whole open letter thing just gives me a little bit of the ick because if you want to do the right thing as a company…just do it. Just a thought.

—Be like Emma. Or: What a journo can teach us about content

Ya’ll know it’s pretty rare that I stray from talking about actual campaign tactics in this section, but sometimes I’m just a horse that drinks when it’s led to water. And this week I’m drinking. As any casual X observer probably noticed, the internet went gaga over some explainer videos posted by WSJ journalist Emma Camp - not because of WHAT she said, but because of HOW she said it. And you know what? Yes. I, too, got sucked into Emma’s explainers. So clear. So basic. So many facts! So much sense in 77 seconds! And because I can’t help but think about my day job all day every day, I wondered: should candidates be doing this? Um, yes? I’m calling on every campaign digital staffer to pitch an idea: have their candidate do an explainer video talking about how Democrats are responsible for the high cost of living in their state/district/city/etc. Come on - give the people what they want! Presumably anyone running for office has some carefully thought-out policy positions. Presumably they know a thing or two about a thing or two. Take advantage! Make your case! Do it on video and post that content! In a sea of Cory Bookers on TikTok, try being an Emma Camp!

—Voter Contact-Maxxing

Speaking of campaign tactics, last week in the run-up to the SC Senate run-off election, I heard a weird ding on my phone. I glanced down. “What was that??” Wait for it…’twas a ringless voicemail. Yes, you read that right. I know this isn’t that new, but it’s the first time I’ve gotten one and I have to say…it was kind of a nice change from all the texts and mail pieces. I didn’t have to endure an actual phone call and the panic(!) of having to decide whether or not to pick up an unknown number. I just got a notification and got to scan the transcript of the VM. I actually think I might be on the ringless voicemail train now as a light yet effective way to do voter contact in a world of endless texts and emails. But if you’re gonna do texts…you gotta figure out how to stand out, right? Enter audio? I got a tip recently from someone who thought I’d find this interesting. (Spoiler: I do). A group called The Best of Tennessee used Para AI to generate GOTV audio messages (see screenshot above) that they sent out via text in the run-up to the August 6 primary. Again…it’s different. Kinda cool. Kinda worth thinking about testing if you ask me!

Sentry is built by Powers Interactive and shouldn’t cost you anything. So it doesn’t.

Political campaigns spend countless hours trying to figure out who’s doing what. Stop guessing.
Sentry lets you search political ads by race, candidate, and advertiser across Google and Meta. Track spending, monitor changes the same day, and keep tabs on CTV.
If competitive ad intelligence matters to your work, check it out:

A Ted Cruz aligned Super PAC is running an ad against James Talarico, hitting him for letting China buy up Texas farmland.
Republican Bernadette Wilson has advanced to the general election for governor in Alaska.
Ashley Hinson is up about 4 points in a new Iowa senate race poll
A Super PAC supporting Vivek Ramaswamy is out with a new ad hitting Democrat Amy Acton for drinking while on prescription drugs…

Facebook

Google

🏛️ The CA Senate passed legislation that would fine content creators for not disclosing they were paid to post political content.

✏️ Instagram is sharing some tips on what makes a good caption these days. Check ‘em out.

🫂 Speaking of IG…some tried and true tactics on growing your following. Read ‘em.

😦 Apparently Meta is going to remove the ability to edit or exclude placement options for ads? Don’t like this!

📺 A new court ruling says party committees can’t get candidate rates on TV ads after all? Lame.

Thomas Carufel was recently promoted to Executive Vice President of Digital at Launchpad Strategies. Congrats!
CMDI has launched Pulse - a “new predictive donor intelligence built directly into Crimson.”
This open letter from Spencer Sullivan at Texting For Less has been making the rounds…I even got a hard copy of it mailed to my house! Quite the marketing strategy.
Also…apparently the Department of Homeland Security is looking for a vendor to help handle some public voter file acquisition. Bet you can guess for what. I’ll let you read the whole RFI here. Thanks to the loyal reader who flagged!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

Fitting this week: AdWeek did a round-up of some of Dolly Parton’s most iconic ads.

RIP, Dolly Parton. Legend.

From the other side of the aisle:

Two things this week. First, Notus took a look at some Democrat campaigns this cycle that are embracing “redboxing” (to be fair, some GOPers are doing this too). Here’s a nugget:

More than a dozen Democratic candidates in the nation’s hottest congressional races have embraced “redboxing,” a controversial election-season technique that provides super PACs and other moneyed outside groups with campaign materials without, technically, violating federal laws against coordination.
Five of these candidates removed “redboxing” content after inquiries from NOTUS.
Such materials, which are sometimes surrounded by a red box on the campaign website, include messaging priorities and specific instructions for where and how to spend on advertising, according to a NOTUS analysis of campaign websites for candidates in the closest House and Senate races as rated by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Second, I’m officially nominating Democrat Rep. Tom Suozzi (NY) for worst campaign website of the cycle. I mean…what is this.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Doomscrolling With: Jordan Lieberman

Amanda Elliott — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:01:04 GMT

This week we’re talking to the one and only Jordan freaking Lieberman about campaign spending, consultants, and this crazy industry of ours!

Now let’s get to some scrolling.

First of all, who are you and what do you do?

I’m Jordan Lieberman - CEO of Powers Interactive, a tech enabled media buying shop, focused on voter targeted and data driven digital ads. I’ve been here since running Campaigns & Elections magazine 2005 to 2010. I devote an unhealthy amount of time looking under the floorboards of our industry. I lived in DC for 23 years and spend my free time with large animals who don’t talk back.

You write a great Substack called Vendor Trap, which I’ve been loving. But what possessed you to start combing through FEC data in the first place? And after spending all that time in the data, what's the biggest disconnect you've found between how our industry thinks campaigns work and what the numbers actually show?

The work behind my Substack is part business intelligence for Powers Interactive. We’ve developed a relationship model of our neighborhood, covering 6 billion data points, 60 million transactions, and over 1 million vendor entities spelled every possible way. The writing you see just scratches the surface of what we see. I keep the good stuff for Powers.

The biggest disconnect? We assume the career ladder still works the way it used to. Most of us did time on campaigns or committees, and if you’re reading Doomscroll you probably figured it out, but the conveyor belt is broken.

What happened to make this career path so much harder than it used to be? Mentorship, upwardly mobile campaign gigs and field jobs, internships…. all measurably sinking. There is no pay premium for working on multiple campaigns, year after year. New firms’ share of all vendor relationships and total spending is down.

Channeling Ace Rothstein from Casino, people used to come up through the count room, where somebody older taught you where every dollar in the building went. Then it got easier to hire people who had never counted anything. Our count room was a field office, and we closed it during Covid. When nobody learns the craft, relationships become the only credential. That’s the opposite of the meritocracy I want my kids to live in.

One post I found particularly interesting was the one in June where you looked at 25 years worth of data and found that the single most important variable of a winning campaign’s digital operation was WHEN they started spending. Knowing that…how do you think Republicans are doing (on the spending front) at this point in this cycle?

I’ve had a series of nonpartisan and media jobs- a good place to zoom out. Most of the daylight around tactics between Republicans and Democrats is fiction. There are some things around the edges: Republicans earn slightly more on FEC trackable payrolls but that’s mainly because Democratic campaigns more often bulk up on reportable field staff late in the campaign. Even in the bowels of CA subvendor reporting, differentiation is lighter than cable news would have you believe.

When nobody learns the craft, relationships become the only credential.

Well, we know the bulk of campaign spending happens after Labor Day and a lot of that has to do with the fact that that’s just when candidates are able to raise more money. But should campaigns be putting more effort into trying to disrupt that cycle?

This will be the first and last time Celinda Lake is quoted in Doomscroll: Early Money is Like Yeast because it makes the dough rise. She didn’t invent the phrase but I learned it from her, so I’ll give her credit because it’s my interview.

Campaigns should raise early money. I’m just doubtful they actually can.

Let's talk about incentives and consultants. Consultants are hired and paid a retainer, but they also often get compensated again based on how money gets spent. As a consultant myself I’m a little nervous to see what you’ll say here…but do you think the incentive/ compensation structure is hurting our ability to run winning campaigns?

No. You get what you pay for. You can buy media from lots of people. You should not buy judgment or accountability from the low bidder.

We do not have a compensation problem. We do have a mentorship and “next generation” problem. The fastest way to scare off a smart future workforce is to dictate how much they should earn.

Ok, I’ll take it!

You spend a lot of time analyzing whether campaign spending actually makes sense. So turn that lens on your own industry for me: When you look at the way campaigns are spending on programmatic, what are we getting wrong? Don’t hold back!

Thanks Amanda for the invitation to burn this place down two months before Election Day!

Today I’ll pick on competitive intelligence not informing enough buys. The vast majority of buyers in this space do not have any sense for what their competitors or the competitors’ clients are doing.

I think if you are a real student of this, someone who cares about the craft as much as the profit, you must have the tools to zoom out. We built a tool for ourselves called Sentry and shared it with the world. In my view, technology wants to cost $0, we just helped it get there.

The next steps are predictive modeling. You can read a great deal about Katie Porter and Graham Platner’s mindset ahead of primary dates by looking closely at who gave up and who was in denial for too long.

You can buy media from lots of people. You should not buy judgment or accountability from the low bidder.

A while back you wrote something that I love, which is that CTV is a “digital ad wearing a television skin suit.” You wrote that campaigns often let their TV buyers handle CTV because those relationships go back a long time, even though the skill set required to buy it is fundamentally different. So what I think you’re saying (and don’t let me put too many words in your mouth!) is that the CTV problem exposes a much larger issue with the traditional campaign consulting model.

I’ll boil down what you are really asking…. Who deserves to get CTV budgets? I think you know my opinion. CTV is bought like a digital ad, measured like a digital ad, delivered like a digital ad. It’s the fastest growing tactic in our arsenal so I understand why the folks who mastered terrestrial radio buying in 1994 would want a piece of this.

Ha! Ok let’s end with the million-dollar question. Based on everything you’ve looked at, are campaigns today actually making rational, evidence-based spending decisions? And if not, what's the biggest thing standing in the way?

The industry is more tribal than rational. My campaign clients tend to be quick thinkers and generally talented. But who gets hired, who controls which budget, and which relationships persist are measurably determined by networks, history and tribes, and this is consistently misunderstood by newcomers with a new product or skill set.

I think the question you might be asking is, how do I break in as a consultant? The answer is surprisingly clear. Find yourself a rabbi. Work on a campaign, a committee. Then make friends with people outside of your tribe, because as tribal as hiring decisions are, long term career success has more to do with being the bridge.

Thanks for doomscrolling with us, Jordan!

Mo’ Data Centers, Mo’ Problems

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 23:01:26 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Without any further ado, let’s get to some scrolling.

Thank you to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about the biggest lie in a vendor’s deck. You guys were (shockingly) evenly split between these 4 options: the support team is easy to reach, the cheaper price will save you money, billing is simple and accurate, and 10DLC will be quick and easy. Alrighty, then!

This week’s One Question is about data centers. Yes, really. This week the NRSC sent a memo to the AI Industry - at large - telling them to spend now, spend big, or kiss all their data center plans goodbye (I’m paraphrasing). It got a lot of attention - for good reason. The data center debate right now is starting to turn into one of those election cycle dynamics that will determine who wins and who loses that we have no control over…except some of us did. I’m not pointing fingers or anything, but there are a lot of firms out there that got lots of big contracts to ::check notes:: help massage the reality of data center expansion for voters. And what have they gotten? Let’s see…an industry that’s about as popular as “spent nuclear waste.” Cool, cool. A Gallup poll released in May found that 70% of Americans oppose data centers being built in their communities. More Americans would rather have a nuclear energy plant in their area than a data center. I mean…what?!

So here’s my question: Should every single consultant working on this issue be fired (I’m only kind of joking)? But really: was the NRSC memo warranted and how worried are you about how this issue will impact the Midterms? I know that’s not really a ~digital~ question per se, but maybe it is if we’re going to start messaging on this issue!

Real human answers only

The above quote comes from a Democratic strategist named Keyon Thomas who, according to Politico, is so busy traveling the country trying to get Democrats to use AI that he and his wife have a running joke that he doesn’t live at home anymore. Cool, that’s a little more info than I needed, BUT! The piece, which is about how the left is behind in adopting AI on the campaign trail, hits at an interesting quandary for a party that’s looking to harness voter antipathy towards AI and data centers (data centers!!!). How can you bash AI on the stump and then turn around and run your ad strategy through Claude? Good question…But also fwiw, I think he’s wrong about 2028 being the AI election. It’s 2026, and just because Dems are behind doesn’t mean you can pretend that we’re not there yet! Just a thought.

—Abbott’s Impact

Greg Abbott is out with a fancy new app called Abbott Impact and yes, I downloaded it so you don’t have to. It’s snazzy. It’s sleek. And it basically tries to get you to do some relational organizing in exchange for points you can redeem for cool prizes. Knock enough doors and you can eventually get a Traeger Pellet Grill and Smoker. I’m not joking. Or a VIP invite to the Texas Governor’s Mansion (15,000 points just fyi) Actions include putting in your address so you can “message your neighbors” with a pre-written note. The one I had access to was about encouraging people to request a mail-in ballot. Cool, cool. Of course, many politicians have dipped their toes in the app waters. Ted Cruz had (has?) and app. I’m sure others did too that I’m now totally forgetting. And look, I applaud the decision to prioritize relational organizing. I do. I’ve written about relational so much I could probably write a book about it at this point. So yay! But these days it’s always interesting to me when someone chooses to build their own thing for this purpose rather than using the Numinars or SwipeReds of the world. But hey! You do you. Whether this is successful really depends on how much effort the Abbot Team puts into getting people to download it. And there better be a full-court press on that front. Godspeed, my friends!

—In which I stick up for our Vice President

The irreplaceable JD Vance got a little bit wrekt online this week after posting a TikTok of himself attempting the Marine Corp obstacle course. The 14-second video really doesn’t show him doing a whole lot of anything - much less completing the entire course. But you know what? I think it’s ok. It’s a mash-up! Mash-ups are supposed to have a bunch of weirdly-timed jump cuts! And it still includes some nice face-to-camera action in the beginning so what more could we want? I mean, to me the bigger question about this video is why our VP is outside wearing a sweatshirt in this heat. WTF is that??

—A sleeper in the Pacific Northwest?

Look, the Oregon governor’s race may not be on everyone’s Bingo card for things to pay attention to this year, but who doesn’t love a sleeper of a race. This one might be mine. With incumbent Tina Kotek and Republican Christine Drazan both on the ballot, it’s a rematch from 2022, when Drazan lost by only 3 percentage points. Which is saying something in a state that hasn’t had a GOP governor since the 1980s! Is there hope for Drazan this year? Maybe? Her campaign started spending on Google about 2 weeks ago and has spent more than $175K since. Her ads - part-bio, part-cost-of-living - strike a pretty populist tone that comes across as very centered and pragmatic. And yeah, I’m glad to see her spending. It’s a good sign, IMO. She’s got a tough hill to climb in our current environment, but crazier things have happened!

Ryan Elijah defeated Rep. Cory Mills in Florida’s 7th congressional district
Eric Barlow won the Republican nod for governor in Wyoming
Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan have advanced to the general election in the Alaska senate race
But the Alaska gov race is a little messier…so far only two Democrats have advanced to the 4-person general election contest
Byron Donalds easily won the GOP nomination for governor in Florida
Rep. Randy Fine pulled out a win in Florida’s 6th congressional district
Darline Graham released a new spot this about protecting girls’ sports

Facebook

Google

📨 So Google is going to help us inbox - yay!

📹 And YouTube announced that views for ALL videos on its platform will count from the moment it starts playing.

💰 Adam Bonica did a deep dive into the Democrat scam fundraising machine

IMGE is hiring a social media manager. Apply here!
I heard there was a WinRed happy hour this week, but I couldn’t scrounge up any gossip fit to print. I am disappointed in the lot of you!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

We’re writing so much about data centers today sorry not sorry?!?! At this point, even I hate myself. ANYWAY…I can’t let this Jason Kelce Liquid Death ad go un-discussed. As a female who doesn’t like acknowledging bodily fluids…I was grossed out watching it. But boy is it a creative ad. Save the planet by drinking more Liquid Death so you can pee more and send it to data centers to use instead of water to cool the machines? Pretty clever. But also how crazy is it that Liquid Death knows anti-data center sentiment is so high, it’s safe to use in a marketing campaign. If I were a data center company right now I’d be feeling….pretty bad. (And as someone who worked at the NRA during Parkland I know a thing or two about working at a place hated by vast swaths of the American public, just saying).

From the other side of the aisle:

Ok fine…I’ll say some nice things about that Zohran Mamdani video with the bike helmet. Yes, it’s good. Yes, it’s effective. Yes, it accomplishes a lot in 22 seconds (a politician apologizing??!). I get it, I get it. You know what I also get? The fact that I can’t think of one prominent Republican politician or candidate who does stuff like this. Except for maybe a few: Sen. John Kennedy, Rep. Tim Burchett (just to name 2 off the top of my head), and - sometimes - Rep. Nancy Mace. Vivek Ramaswamy did it during his 2024 primary campaign before denouncing social media in the Wall Street Journal (mmmk).

I was talking to someone the other day about why candidates on our side are struggling to raise money this cycle. Part of the reason, this person said, was candidate quality. There’s an enthusiasm gap and no one is that excited to give to Mike Rogers or Michael Whatley or Susan Collins. But I don’t know…it’s not even so much about these guys being “exciting” or not. You know what I think? And it’s just a hunch…People WANT to give money to their friends. It really is that simple. The problem is no one thinks they want to be friends with these candidates because THEY DON’T KNOW THEM AT ALL. I just don’t think the base wants to give money to “politicians”. And yeah…Mike Rogers doesn’t need to fill a stadium of people to be a good online fundraiser. He just needs to make them feel like he could be their friend. And that’s what Mamdani does in his videos. I know the bike helmet thing has nothing to do with fundraising…but in a way it absolutely does. Mamdani didn’t use helmets to ask for $5. AOC didn’t use freezing her eggs to raise a buck (at least not that I’ve seen!) but none of their content exists in a vacuum. And it’s time we stop thinking about online fundraising as its own, separate program. It’s not. We need to shift how we view fundraising, start thinking holistically about our candidate’s online presence or we’re going to keep getting left behind. Here’s my fundraising philosophy for 2026 and beyond: If people like you, they’ll probably give you money. If they don’t, they won’t and they can’t like you if they don’t know you. And if you’re going to be online, posting content, people expect a certain level of intimacy and authenticity. The Dems are delivering. We aren’t.

And that’s what I have to say about the Mamdani bike helmet video.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Eggs, a backwards moon, and other things that were posted on the internet this week

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 16 Aug 2026 23:00:44 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right!

I hope everyone enjoyed Thursday night’s Doomscrolling With Michael-freaking-Beach! If not, finish reading this and then go check that out! Promise you won’t regret it.

Thank you to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about Tucker Carlson! I’m happy to say a full ⅔ of those who answered agree with me that he won’t actually run for president in 2028. Now that THAT’S settled…let’s get to a few of your comments. When it comes to how a potential Carlson 2028 candidacy COULD upend the campaign playbook, here’s what some of you said:

I don’t think TC will run because, at his core, he is a media type – not a political type. He would prefer to find a candidate to further his message, and turn his rightful agenda into a viable political movement. Whether he runs or not – and if the latter, assuming that he finds a suitable candidate – this would be an 8.0 earthquake-equivalent on the Richter scale for the GOP and the US national political environment, similar to how Trump upended the GOP and national politics in 2016.
I don’t think Tucker runs. He unquestionably has an audience and a movement, but I’m less convinced he has a coalition he can expand. And 2028 may present Republicans with a very different opportunity. After two presidential cycles dominated by celebrity and personality, while democratic socialism gains real electoral strength through figures like Mamdani, AOC and now El Sayed, the smarter contrast may be to let Democrats own ideological disruption and position the GOP as the rational, competent path forward. Tucker would pull Republicans in the opposite direction. He’d generate enormous attention, but the question I’d ask is: who does he add? Winning a Republican primary and expanding a Republican coalition are two very different things.
He wouldn’t need a playbook. Trump already wrote it for him. And he’s been teasing a run his entire career. He does that for the audience.
It might hurt someone ideologically aligned with Tucker like a Vance in an open primary, creating a lane for a more establishment or neo-con candidate to become competitive. Maybe the way to go is turning the manifesto into some kind of pledge or litmus test for endorsing Vance or other down ballot candidates.
One thing I’d be fascinated to watch is how a Tucker campaign handles voice and tone. His voice is already the brand, and he doesn’t need advertising to introduce voters to who he is. The creative challenge would be reaching voters outside that existing audience without sanding off the very thing that makes him Tucker. In political VO, we talk a lot about authenticity and persuasion. Tucker has authenticity with his audience in spades. Persuasion beyond that audience is a very different assignment.

Tucker, among many others, has simply lost the plot and says things for attention. They’re like the aunt who shows up for Thanksgiving and you roll your eyes sighing just at the thought of what insanity will come out of their mouth. And when she does speak, you were fully prepared for it but yet somehow even then you’re dumbfounded by the tinfoil hat sitting upon her already pointy tinfoil hat. And yet…unfortunately people listen and give it enough attention to be “relevant.”

As always, thanks to everyone who took time to weigh in! Also, to the person who submitted a gazillion-word op-ed: Thank you. I did read it (scout’s honor), but it is simply too long to publish. Keep it coming, though!

Anyway, this week’s One Question is a special one. It’s sponsored by my friends at Texting for Less! They - along with me - want to know about your relationship with your texting vendor! The vendor-client relationship is ALWAYS a special one - and that can be good or bad. We’ve all been there: We sign the contract or strike up an arrangement and things are going great…until they aren’t and suddenly vendor management is a full-time job. Or! You sign that contract and 6 months later it’s STILL the relationship you never knew you needed! Bliss. Either way, it’s always worth doing a little check-in. So please, please, please (in my best Sabrina Carpenter voice!) do US a little favor and check out this week’s Question by smashing that button below!

Answer right here!

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Doomscrolling With: Michael Beach

Amanda Elliott — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 23:02:08 GMT

No. You are not hallucinating. It is not Sunday evening and yet Doomscroll is in your inbox!

Well, sort of.

Welcome to Doomscrolling With - a new series in which I corner smart people in the GOP campaign ecosystem and force them to answer my questions about data, digital, fundraising, advertising, and whatever else I happen to be hyper-fixated on at the moment - like inboxing (jk jk jk).

Doomscrolling With will start as surprise bonus editions that will make appearances from time to time. No set cadence or schedule. It’ll show up basically like a donor with max-out-kind-of money: not often enough, but always welcome.

What should you expect? Think less formal Q&A and more casual back and forth with cool people who really know their stuff. And this week, I’m pleased as punch to announce we’re talking with someone who really, really knows his stuff: Michael freaking Beach.

Now let’s get to some scrolling.

First of all, who are you and what do you do?

My name is Michael Beach. I’m the co-founder and CEO of 1903 Group, a holding company that buys and builds data and software businesses focused on political and public affairs. Before that, I founded Cross Screen Media, which builds the software agencies use to plan, buy, and measure TV advertising across streaming and linear. Earlier in my career, I co-founded Targeted Victory and worked at the RNC.

I’ve spent two decades at the collision point of media, data, and money, trying to figure out where attention is going next, and helping campaigns get there before their opponents do. I also write State of the Screens, a weekly newsletter on the battle for attention across TV and streaming, and wrote a book on the same subject called Screen Wars.

With 1903 Group, you seem to be bringing a lot of different technologies under one roof to help campaigns reach the right voters. Does that reflect where the industry is headed? Is the future less about having the best individual tech stack and more about making sure every piece of the voter contact ecosystem is connected and sharing data?

Our goal at 1903 Group is simple: make life easier for our customers. The area of focus is voter contact, and we take a wide view of it: everything from paid media (TV advertising, etc.) all the way to field and digital (relational organizing, texting, etc.).

We built an incredible data and software stack with Cross Screen Media, and we see a massive opportunity to connect it to the other parts of the voter contact puzzle. That’s why the portfolio looks the way it does: audience data, a voter CRM, offline and online activation, all designed to talk to each other.

To answer your question directly: yes, that’s where the industry is headed. Best-in-class point solutions still matter, but the edge has shifted. Ten years ago you won by having the best individual tool. Now every campaign has access to good tools. The campaigns that win are the ones where the data actually moves between them.

Ok so on that note, let’s talk org chart. For the most part, campaigns still have a digital team, a field team, mail consultant, TV buyer, and data vendor. Every one of those groups has its own priorities and goals - is that model becoming outdated? Five years from now, do campaigns still have separate digital and field directors - or are we moving toward one person overseeing voter contact across every channel?

Yes and no. Digital has certainly moved into a central role in every part of the campaign (raising money, turning out voters, etc.), but the silos are growing faster than the overall progress.

Some political groups try to solve this with central data and technology teams. That can work, but only if it’s permanent infrastructure. If it scales up and down with the election cycle, it will fail. You can’t rebuild the plumbing every two years and expect it to work by crunch time.

The campaigns that win are the ones where the data actually moves between them.

That’s why I think many of these problems ultimately get solved by the marketplace. A company like ours can build cross-functional infrastructure and maintain it every year, not just in even years, because we have a commercial reason to keep the pipes connected. Campaigns are temporary. The infrastructure underneath them shouldn’t be. So five years from now, campaigns may still have separate digital and field directors, but the winning ones will have those teams working off the same data.

Field teams collect an incredible amount of information that digital teams often never see or use - and the reverse is true as well. What opportunities are campaigns missing because those two worlds are still operating separately?

There’s a significant amount of overlap between the voters we’re trying to raise money from, turn out, and convert into activists, but we silo those activities off to different teams. The same person can be a $25 donor, a turnout target, and a potential volunteer, and on most campaigns that means three teams, three budgets, and three contact plans that never talk to each other.

Part of this is an org chart problem, but the lack of a unified CRM across field and digital is huge. If a field program learns something at the door, that information should change what every other channel does next. Today, on most campaigns, it simply doesn’t.

Let’s connect this back to advertising. If digital teams start getting better voter data from their field programs, how should that fundamentally change the way they’re buying ads? Or put another way: If someone answers a door knock at 2 PM on a Saturday and says they’re undecided… how quickly should that change the ads they’re seeing online?

The honest answer to your door-knock question: it should change their ads within a day, and the technology to do that exists right now. The bottleneck isn’t the ad platforms. It’s that the door-knock data never makes it out of the field program.

One thing I’ve been obsessed with at every stop (the RNC, Targeted Victory, Cross Screen Media) is the cost per incremental vote. Take a campaign’s entire voter contact budget and divide it by the incremental votes it actually creates, and it can exceed thousands of dollars per vote. Once you understand that, a whole new range of tactics starts to make sense.

For example: in 2024, our data showed that roughly 12% of persuadable voters in the presidential battleground states never saw a TV ad, linear or streaming. If a campaign is spending $500M on persuasion, it makes sense to break $60M out and reach that group any way possible. In the past, if you asked for $60M to run alternative tactics (texting, paid doors, social ads) against a small subset of voters, you’d have been laughed out of the room. Once a campaign sees the data clearly, decisions that once seemed crazy become obvious.

You can’t rebuild the plumbing every two years and expect it to work by crunch time.

If better voter data ultimately leads to smarter media buying, what does that mean for the future of programmatic? Where do you see it evolving over the next few election cycles?

The impact of programmatic grows every day, and streaming in particular offers a fundamentally different setup. Linear TV spent a decade promising addressable advertising and never delivered it at scale. Streaming is addressable by default: household-level targeting, impression-level measurement, and programmatic pipes are built into the medium. For campaigns, that means the voter file can finally meet the TV screen directly.

Over the next few cycles, I’d watch two things. First, more premium TV inventory, including live sports, becomes available programmatically, which erases what’s left of the line between a “TV buy” and a “digital buy.”

Second, the definition of TV keeps expanding. Podcasts are a great example: the majority of podcast consumption now includes video, and podcast time on TV screens is growing enormously. Once a podcast is watched on a television, it’s streaming TV inventory. It gets targeted, measured, and bought like TV. Programmatic is how all of that new inventory gets connected to voter data.

What’s one assumption campaigns still make about paid media that you think won’t be true five years from now? Or maybe…Tell me what you think the biggest mistake is that campaigns are still making when it comes to advertising?

We’re fortunate that the overwhelming majority of our customers are extremely smart and forward-looking. Back in 2017, they saw the advantage of bringing all forms of TV advertising together under one plan. The next challenge is integrating the largest part of the voter contact budget (TV advertising) with everything else, so campaigns can make decisions from a central data source.

The biggest mistake bad media shops still make is being siloed, whether their view of the world is dominated by linear or by digital. That problem was solved years ago. The smart shops have already moved on to the next frontier.

Thanks for doomscrolling with us, Michael!

Mr. Rogers' Michigan

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 09 Aug 2026 23:01:15 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll, your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right. There was a lot happening on the internet this week, not gonna lie. And all I’m gonna say is this: Kinda chic to spend $20 on a burrito. 🙃

Let’s get to some scrolling.

Today's edition of Doomscroll is brought to you by THE tool that helps you search political ad spending by race, candidate and advertiser...Keep scrolling for more.

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about invoicing and chasing down payment. It was a little bit of an unusual topic for us, I realize that, but I appreciate everyone who humored me. Of those who answered the question about how long you’ve waited for an invoice to be paid…43% of you said 6 months and counting, while a whopping 57% said “it’s never getting paid.” Guys… That’s INSANE to me. More than half of us are resigned to the idea of losing money we’re owed? No bueno. 57% of you ALSO said that your largest outstanding invoice amount is more than $100,000. Again. INSANE. I’m pissed off on your behalf. 28% of you said it was in the 25K-$50K range and 14% said $50K-$75K. Just over half of you said you’ve taken legal action to try and get yo money. A couple comments:

Campaigns don’t pay vendors, vendors don’t pay other vendors, it’s a brutal world. Contracts don’t seem to matter to half of these people and unless you’re willing to litigate you have to eat your losses.
Winning campaigns are much more reliable than losing ones. Have usually been able to settle without getting lawyers involved.

I mean…I guess I don’t really know what I was expecting with this question. Yes, it’s a brutal world out there, but candidates need to pay their bills - win or lose. And that’s just a fact. And while I’m not saying it’s time to start naming and shaming, I’m not NOT saying that either, so if you feel led by the Good Lord to use that gossip button a little farther down, I’m certainly not going to stop you. Pay. Your. Invoices.

Ok this week’s One Question is about someone I’m usually loath to bring up in any conversation. And not just because I had the pleasure(?) of working for him as my first job out of college (true story). Yes I’m talking about Tucker Carlson. The dude has released a manifesto of sorts. Some are egging him to run for president in 2028. And so my question is this: Do you think he runs and if he does, what does that mean for the GOP campaign ecosystem? Does he have a movement that will translate into real grassroots support? Will he hurt the Republican ticket? Is he a legit threat and how would his candidacy upend the current campaign playbook? Phew, that’s a lot. Me? I don’t think he runs and I have my reasons why. But I enjoy a good thought experiment every now and then. So join me and put on your strategist hats!

Smash this button

The above quote comes from a fascinating essay Katie Harbath wrote this week about how Trump and Harris voters under the age of 35 reported whether or not they’d ever had their mind changed by a content creator or influencer. The headline focuses on how 35% of Trump voters under 35 reported being persuaded, but that number falls to 19% among Harris voters. Harbath spends much of the rest of her essay hypothesizing why that disparity exists and if you haven’t read it yet, you really should. But the reason the above quote jumped out at me so much is because it gets at what’s coming down the road: Mainly, whether - or how - AI content will start to influence young voters online. And also ::dun dun dunnnn:: does it matter? If creators have this much sway among this block of voters, what happens when the creator shifts from being the fitness instructor in Reno to a AI-run bot that’s mining our digital footprints? Just a thought!

—Ready, Set Rogers!

Mike Rogers is stepping it up these days - and not a moment too soon now that the Senate race in the Great Lakes State is officially set. First, I’ve been a little hyper-fixated lately on custom WinRed pages and this one from Team Rogers has all the bells and whistles. It may even be TOO over the top, but I bet it’s converting. What’s more, it’s not just WinRed pages that I’ve noticed are getting a lot of design tweaks. Emails are too. The Mike Rogers email that links to the aforementioned WinRed page looks like it was built by someone who studied graphic design at SCAD and I mean that with all due respect. The copy is a little out there (“Please, click the link above and read what we've outlined before they shut down our ability to warn you.” Um, ok!). But man is it a nice-looking email.

Before we move on, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also give Mr. Rogers a shout-out for the video appeal he posted for normie Dems this week. It’s no burger video (scroll down), but it IS a good example of a candidate with pretty good instincts. I wish it were a little less staged. And (don’t kill me) I don’t understand why you’d put a spouse on camera if they’re not going to say anything (wives aren’t props!), but it’s a really good message and getting out there right after the primary was a solid move.

—The news that’s fit to print!

Lefty journo Judd Legum blew the door wide open on Senate Republican’s network of “fake” news sites. One Nation, it seems, has launched six websites in six key states: Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Maine. I mean, aside from the fact that this tactic is giving me major 2018 RGA vibes (IYKYK), BOTH sides have done stuff like this. And I say…if you have the money and resources, why the heck not? They’re websites with information. They’ll probably be used to run ads. Again: if we’re outraged over this and NOT outraged over the Courier “News” Network…you’ve got problems.

—Baggage Claims

Speaking of Michigan…everyone knows I love a good attack site. Earlier this week someone flagged PerryJohnsonFacts.com for me and I have to say…it ain’t bad. In fact, it’s pretty good. Almost too good. Almost like…a lot of effort went into a site to attack someone who was consistently down 10 points in the polls? I don’t know. I wasn’t following the Michigan gubernatorial primary enough to know why Mission Michigan would put this much effort into a website attacking Perry Johnson. It’s pretty slick, but ALMOST veers towards overly complicated. That’s always the danger with sites like this. Throwing an entire oppo book onto a website isn’t always the most effective - even if it’s designed well. If I can’t tell you the biggest takeaway after scrolling for 10 seconds, the site misses the mark. This comes close. I think a few design tweaks would have helped this site communicate more effectively to its intended audience, but it’s still better than most so I’m giving it an A-.

Sentry is built by Powers Interactive and shouldn’t cost you anything. So it doesn’t.

Political campaigns spend countless hours trying to figure out who’s doing what. Stop guessing.
Sentry lets you search political ads by race, candidate, and advertiser across Google and Meta. Track spending, monitor changes the same day, and keep tabs on CTV.
If competitive ad intelligence matters to your work, check it out:

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has joined the race for governor
Ty Masterson has secured the GOP nomination for governor in Kansas.
John James is officially the GOP nominee for governor in Michigan.
Rep. Andy Ogles lost to primary challenger Charlie Hatcher this week, despite having Trump’s endorsement (although the president came out for Hatcher after his win).
And Marsha Blackburn officially became the GOP nominee for governor in Tennessee.
Anyone else see this bizarre story? Thomas Smith won the nomination in Michigan’s 8th congressional district this week despite suspending his campaign last month.
Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan is out with a new ad about how he fights for Alaska and his opponent, Mary Peltola, was handpicked by the radical left.
Security is Strength, the Super PAC backing Darline Graham in South Carolina put out an attack ad against Rep. Russel Fry this week. It’s not bad…but I doubt it’ll stick.
Rep. Andy Biggs, who’s running for governor in Arizona, is out with a new spot contrasting his record with incumbent Dem. Governor Katie Hobbs. One new poll, however, has him trailing Hobbs 52-44.
Some interesting polling out of Iowa this week: Democrat Rob Sand has the lead in the gov race, but Republican Ashley Hinson is ahead in the Senate race.

Facebook

Google

Ok, this is a little unusual for us, but this interview with LTK co-founder Amber Venz Box (yes, that’s her real name) caught my attention this week. For those who don’t know, LTK is a platform that allows content creators to share affiliate links and earn commission (if you’re a female and over the age of 21 I guarantee you’ve clicked on a LTK link more than once). In other words: it’s an extremely successful tech company.

Anyway, the interview is about how LTK is entering a new era, evolving its business model, etc etc, but this is the snippet that I thought was worth flagging. At the end, Box is asked about where she thinks the creator economy is heading. Here’s what she has to say:

I think creators are starting to realize this, but the broader industry I don’t think has yet: the deep importance of an owned audience. Over the last year, every platform has now moved from a core following feed to an interest-led, algorithmic feed. You overlay that with AI, and ultimately that turns creators into content machines for platforms.
You have to realize that as a creator, your job is to get that customer out of that platform so you can build a relationship with them. The smartest creators are realizing that, but the broader industry is just awakening to the revenue that they gain from creators who are social-only creators is what I describe as at-risk revenue.
As a brand, if you’re making investments in someone who only has a social media audience, I don’t think of it as a long-term investment…One algorithm change can take their business, and therefore take the investments that you’ve been making in them as a partner. This concept of owned audiences and algorithmic audiences is, for elite creators, becoming a very important topic.

Ya’ll. This is maybe one area where politics has been ahead of the corporate world? I give major kudos to Box for pointing this out, but I know many of us were preaching this 2 and 3 cycles ago. Owned audiences are everything. Revenue that relies on social-only creators is “at-risk revenue,” says Box. The same thing applies to us - which is why I’m constantly beating the lead-generation drum and am not willing to just give up that focus because of inboxing problems or whathaveyou. I know I’m largely preaching to the choir here, but what can I say? I’m just a girl, standing here, begging you to collect leads and own your audience.

Also relevant? You don’t even have to have a massive following to get into the. The WSJ reported this week that brands are starting to cultivate relationships with creators who have as few as 500 followers.

From an anonymous commenter:

Has anyone noticed a bunch of digital agencies are throwing some of their folks on tv lately? TW Arrighi at Push, Gorman at TV, Hahn at Frontline, I know Tag had Erin Maguire back in the day...etc. What is the goal of this? Just notoriety? Is it worth a smaller agency doing this too or do you need a big agency name to make it work?

Why yes. Yes, I have noticed this. Back when I was coming up in the professional world, unless you were the GC on a major presidential campaign, consultants mainly stayed in the background- and that’s the way everyone wanted it. Obviously things have changed. 1) There’s so much more programming out there, I think producers are willing to book almost anyone. 2) I could see this being part of a firm’s marketing or business development strategy. Get your people to be viewed as THE experts and maybe you snag the high-profile campaigns? Just a theory. But! I think it’s still worth remembering that clients can and will see every media appearance. And if I’m a candidate struggling to raise money and I see my account rep on Newsmax TV every other day, I may start to have questions.

If anyone reading this feels like weighing in, let me know: itsthedoomscoll@gmail.com

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

Another day, another story about how marketers are embracing nostalgia. This time - specifically for the millennial woman. Look, I am this audience. And yes, I’m getting a kick out of seeing Chad Michael Murray and Hillary Duff get some new life into their careers. Good for them! But is there a play here for politics? I’m not saying we should try and get Sabrina the Teenage Witch to film a campaign ad, but I AM wondering if there’s a nostalgia angle for….the Mike Rogerses and Michael Whatleys of this cycle. Honestly? I’m leaning toward no at the moment. As a consumer, it’s easy to understand how a product like Bubly water can help me make an emotional connection between flavored water and the carefree days of my youth. But in politics? Progress looks forward - not back. You could certainly make a splash with a nostalgia-driven ad if done right, but I just don’t know many voters who are clamoring to go back to 2006.

From the other side of the aisle:

I’ll be honest. I probably paid attention to the Michigan democrat senate primary race way less than most of you. But I did sit up and pay attention when one of the lefty Substacks I subscribe to - Grace Weinstein’s Who Broke It - published an interview she conducted with Abdul el-Sayed back in April on Wednesday. In it, El-Sayed brags about loving the online hate he gets from the right, which fits what little I know about his personality, tbh. But here’s what I thought was interesting. When Weinstein asks him if he’d ever been told that a video of his changed someone’s mind, he immediately said the burger video:

I mean, say what you will about El-Sayed and his insane politics, but this is good content. And he published it almost a whole year before primary election day. And out of all the content he’s posted since, that’s what he immediately went back to. I’m not surprised. You guys: this is someone who understands content and storytelling. We need people on the right who are this invested in creating good, persuasive content.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Capture. Clip. Post.

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 02 Aug 2026 23:01:52 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Let’s get to some scrolling.

B**** better have my money!

Today’s edition of Doomscroll is sponsored by RumbleUp - Thank you, RumbleUp!

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about whether custom WinRed pages are worth the squeeze. A couple of you nitpickers call me out for even asking if the “juice is worth the squeeze” because duh - it ain’t hard to ask Claude to write some custom CSS. I know, I know. My apologies. When it comes to whether fancy pages actually help raise more money, half of respondents said “it depends,” which is basically where I fall. The rest of you were split between “not sure but they’re fun” and “Yessss.” A few comments:

The CSS is def helping. Even with custom buttons to add text. The colors help on specific content too. On the flip side, people use it to hide disclaimers or certain text, which is a future problem.
There’s not much squeeze involved. With LLM coding, you can get custom CSS for nearly anything in under 90 seconds. Why not experiment when the barrier to entry is so low.
Everyone has taught AI to write the custom CSS 🤷‍♂️ in such a case, the question isn’t really “is the juice worth the squeeze” because the squeeze is a half baked prompt if you’ve spent much time teaching an LLM how to hit the style sheets right. The question is, at what point does it actively harm conversion rates. You can get way over the top so it hurts your eyes tbh
Yes! There are tests that have been published that support this.
https://imge.com/testing-hub/21-can-a-custom-css-donation-page-boost-conversions https://imge.com/testing-hub/8-can-a-custom-css-donation-page-boost-conversions and more...

Re: that last comment - thank you to whoever at IMGE submitted! Xoxo

Anyway, I basically think that as long as it’s not making things scammy and it doesn’t hurt my eyes…why not mess around. Go for it.

Ok. I’m sure we all read the NYT story this week about the DNC’s money woes. Particularly the bit about them asking vendors to hold invoices. GAH. That’s bad. Was I the only one who read that and felt a sinister chill go down my spine? Look, committees aren’t gravy trains (and shouldn’t be treated like they are), but they used to be a pretty safe bet for those of us who make a living in the consultant/vendor world. But reality is what it is, and I’m sure we’ve all experienced our fair share of payment/invoicing woes…Right? So this week’s One Question is about getting paid. Think of it as not so much ONE Question, but a super short survey about chasing down invoices and gettin’ yo money. Or in the immortal words of my favorite hype woman Rihanna - getting people to “pay me what you owe. Don’t act like you forgot!” Please.

The above quote comes from the 2026 Consumer Trends report from tvScientific, which I first came across in Chauncey Southworth’s newsletter, Impressions to Ballots. There’s some good stuff in there and even as a digital consultant, I can admit that there’s definitely a time and place to still put an ad on TV (however we define “TV” these days) from a credibility standpoint. And perhaps this is something the corporate world gets right more than we do: Diversifying our media placement is good. But let’s go one step beyond: how are our ad plans reflecting the real consumer (voter) journey? If someone starts by googling a candidate or asking ChatGPT, how are we meeting them there? And then how is THAT different from how we’re meeting them on social or linear or CTV? Just a thought!

—The ad wars

Well, it’s the world’s shortest Senate race and the ads are in.

First up: Darline. This is certainly not a bad ad as it checks all the boxes. At least, any boxes that exist when you’re the sister of a late incumbent Senator who passed away suddenly, was appointed to fill his seat, and then decided to run for a full term in what is shaping up to be a bizzar-o special election. But hey, who’s keeping track!?!? Anywho: She’s speaking directly to camera the whole time which is 100% the right call. No one knows who she is so this will help. The MAGA activists don’t trust her (yet) so a slick, overly-produced ad with a bunch of b-roll would have been the exact wrong call. She also hits the main issues the conservative right really cares about right now: protecting women’s sports and voter ID. She also plugs being pro-life, which is good since one of the biggest knocks against her is that she donated to a pro-choice(ish) Republican state senator in the recent past. She also mentions Trump’s endorsement but doesn’t hang her entire candidacy on it. All in all, pretty good stuff here. I told you guys her team was top notch!

Darline isn’t alone. Ralph Norman has a new spot out, and it ain’t bad, either. He also spends the entire time speaking directly to the camera, but his message is different: I’m the REAL conservative in this race. Mmmmk. He also includes a subtle jab at Darline: “when you choose your next senator, you shouldn’t have to guess.” I mean, that’s fair. My only critique? If you’re going with a green screen background, pick something a little more interesting!

Russel Fry’s ad is out too…and to be honest, I don’t think I’ve seen or heard a more low-energy delivery of a script. Dude. You’re the youngest person in the race by a MILE and this is the best you’ve got? Eek. Look, I’m not going to be unhappy if he’s our next senator, but I think he needs a shot of espresso. Or two or three.

And then there’s Mark Sanford, who is out with not one, but TWO ads already - though they’re both very, very similar. He’s playing up his usual message - the one everyone knows him for: Budgets, debt, wasteful spending, etc. I mean, it works for him. He was freedom caucus before there was a freedom caucus. The OG fiscal conservative. Before anyone knew who Ralph Norman was, Mark Sanford was carrying pigs onto the house floor in Columbia to protest pork-barrel spending. You can’t ever accuse this guy of NOT having a message. I like though, that he’s tailoring it for this campaign. The debt and deficit are too abstract for people who are more concerned with the everyday cost of living - which is probably why Sanford spends his two ads trying to connect those two issues and why he’s launched a “Mama I can’t afford a new truck” tour around the state (doesn’t quite roll off the tongue). Will it resonate? Who the heck knows. But he’s definitely putting in the work that is for sure.

—Fauci Files

You gotta hand it to our Republican senators: They know how to clip and POST THAT S*** ON SOCIAL IN NEAR-REAL TIME! (ok, obviously I’m talking about their staffers but still). Slow clap for Sens. Paul, Moreno, Johnson, Hawley, and everyone else who made sure that Anthony Fauci’s refusal to answer basic questions (what color is your tie!?) was front and center on social media this week. I won’t spend time here rehashing Fauci’s crimes against humanity, but I do want to call out this epic display of social dominance. Credit where credit is due. According to analysis from lefty Magnitude Media - who crunched these numbers so I don’t have to - Hawley’s video of him asking Fauci about the color of his tie got up to 8.3 million views. Here’s more from their July 30 newsletter:

Right-leaning accounts posted 2,300 times about Fauci yesterday—for comparison, that’s more post volume than the Super Bowl (1,900 posts for right-leaning accounts, same for left-leaning accounts). The coordination is notable—Fauci was mentioned in an astonishing 20% of all right-leaning posts yesterday, with three entities mentioning him more than 75 times in a day (Benny Johnson, Daily Caller, and Fox News). This is a great case study for left-leaning pages to take note of and replicate on our priority issues.

Thanks, Magnitude!

Anyway, good work, all around. I saw a lot of conservative leaders taking advantage of the Fauci hearing on the fundraising front as well. Hope it worked for everyone! And look, if I sound too “gleeful” about this…take a breath. I know what hearings - especially high-profile ones - are for. It’s all about the show. The goal IS to generate viral moments, not necessarily to be productive in any kind of serious way (It is 2026 after all). But sometimes…SOMETIMES…a hearing can do both. Sometimes the showboating works because it’s offered up on a silver platter and not taking advantage would be political malpractice. Maybe we would have gotten better results only if Fauci had literally arm-wrestled with Rand Paul on the dais. But pleading the 5th eleventy million times was his choice and gosh darnit, he knew the cameras would be rolling! Capture. Clip. Post. The American people deserve to know how shady HRH Fauci really is.

The campaigns you serve already ask about texting. The only question is which agency bills for the answer.

RumbleUp partners with agencies of all sizes to turn texting into a service line you own. We run the platform, register 10DLC at zero markup and staff white-glove support 7 days a week behind the scenes, so your team delivers texting-expert service without ever becoming texting engineers.

Schedule an exploratory partner call to see how other firms package, price and profit from texting with us.

Looks like America PAC is back in business. #Bless
In Georgia, Rick Jackson is planning $87 million in digital and TV ad spend
SLF is out with an ad hitting Platner 2.0 - I mean, Troy Jackson.
A GOP-affiliated Sunrise PAC is meddling in the Democratic primary in Michigan’s 7th. Good luck.
The NRSC is running an ad in the Minnesota Senate race to attack (read: boost) Peggy Flanagan.
South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden handily beat businessman Toby Doeden in the run-off this week.

Facebook

Google

Perhaps some of you will find this as interesting as I did. The New York Times did a deep dive into how Meta got its “secret” data center deal in Louisiana. A snippet:

Mr. Turner had helped land the largest development in Louisiana’s history: a $50 billion data center for the Silicon Valley giant Meta that planners say could cover about six square miles and use seven times as much energy as New Orleans.
Meta wanted the rebate to build its data center in Richland Parish, an impoverished farming community in Louisiana’s northeast corner. The tech company also needed a secret deal done quickly, and state officials were eager to oblige.

First, I’m gonna hand the mic over to someone who left this anonymous comment:
Long time listener, first time writer. This doesn’t have to do with the prompt but I think this is good material for your next edition. This stuff from the NRSC needs to stop: Ready to hit pause on ALL political texts? You're literally 1 step away. Do it now: act-26.io/r109od stop=end It’s not possible to do this. Donating will result in more texts. And even if it did work, they are sacrificing long term value for short term gain. It’s a scam
Hhhmmm. I’m probably gonna lean towards hitting the “like” button on this one. Don’t promise to stop all political texts. You can’t make that kind of promise, so just don’t do it.
Second, did anyone else see the story this week about the Mike Rogers campaign getting scammed out of $16,000? I mean, I guess it’s not that unprecedented but still! Yeesh.
Third, who remembers our favorite fundraiser Parks freaking Bennett? I told his tale in this here newsletter more than two years ago and talked about how he needed to come to Jesus. Well, I guess he did. Sarcasm aside…I’m never going to make fun of someone who’s giving their life to the Lord and all that, but I sincerely hope this dude treats the pulpit better than he treated our industry. Praying he pays everyone the money he owes.

H/t to a loyal reader for flagging!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

Ok, guys. Let’s all pour one out for Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino , who is stepping down one year after the terrible rebrand fiasco. I mean, who could have seen this coming, amirite?!

From the other side of the aisle:

Some activists are trying to help donors get their money back from the now-defunct Graham Platner campaign. Good for them. I’d be on board with this for someone on our side of the aisle, too. For instance, if a conservative group wanted to help donors get refunds from, say, Rep. Max Miller, I’d be ok with that. Just saying.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Darline. Darline. Darline, Darline...

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:00:20 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! This week a new OpenAI model escaped its sandbox and hacked into another company’s servers. Also this week a leopard escaped its sandbox at our local zoo due to “human error” and there’s definitely a joke in there somewhere worth telling. If you find it, let me know.

Let’s get to some scrolling!

Submit your response HERE

Today's edition of Doomscroll is brought to you by THE tool that helps you search political ad spending by race, candidate and advertiser...Keep scrolling for more.

First off, thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about which underrated social media platforms campaigns should experiment with. There was no consensus. Shocker. And I’m also not sure what that says about us other than I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe we’re just not prioritizing this kind of experimentation. Someone even called me out for not listing top platforms based on monthly active users - specifically YouTube. And to that person, I say: Ok, and?

Look, I lump YouTube in with Facebook and X even if I did leave it out of my question (my bad). To me, it is not something we are experimenting with anymore. It’s as essential as my daily cup and a half of coffee. Also, my list wasn’t exhaustive, hence the “other” option. And lots of you used it. Someone mentioned WhatsApp which, yes, I like. Someone even gave BlueSky a shout-out:

LinkedIn, Truth Social, and Bluesky. Like you said, each platform has a different purpose with different audiences. Use LinkedIn to connect with high-level supporters, community leaders, donors. Truth Social for a harder right audience if you need to communicate your red meat and maybe explore it for small dollar donors. And try Bluesky if you need to connect with a more leftward audience. Not saying you need to do all of them, but each platform provides the medium for whatever your circumstances call for without compromising a client's brand and what they stand for.

I have to say, I’m probably not joining the snowflakes on Bluesky. But hey - if you’ve got the time and think you can get some traction in a sea of lefty vibes, try it out and let me know how it goes.

Alright let’s take a dramatic left turn for this week’s One Question. I’ve been seeing a lot of interesting WinRed pages lately. A lot of custom CSS. Like…a lot. You know who you are. And I don’t hate it. But I do wonder sometimes if the juice is worth the squeeze. Are gradient buttons, animations, and stretched content boxes actually moving the needle? Or are we overthinking it? Is the best-performing page still the one that’s simple, clean, easy to read, and has one strong call to action?

Where do you fall? When it comes to decked-out WinRed pages, what’s the point of diminishing returns?

The above quote comes from an unnamed GOP strategist “with ties” to Trump’s political operation who talked to Axios about our side’s midterm strategy. And honestly…when is it NOT a hate election? However, must we settle for just pointing out how woke and weird our opponents are? Sure, it’s fun, but Republicans stand for stuff too, right? All I’m saying is perhaps we don’t give up on using digital to talk about what we actually believe. Positivity and all that. Optimism. Dare I say…hope. (Who am I and where did the real Amanda Elliott go?!?!?) Yeah, yeah, I know. The national political dynamics don’t make it easy. But where there’s a will there’s a way! Just a thought.

—Palmetto State Politics

I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone out there that the political world in the Palmetto State right now is a mess. A hot mess. We just got through a pretty grueling gubernatorial primary and are now staring down a sprint to an August 11 special election primary to fill the late Lindsey Graham’s senate seat (RIP). I think everyone expected Ralph Norman to throw his hat in the ring (which he did). Same for Rep. Russell Fry, who was the early favorite to get the Trump endorsement and who decided to run even though a victory would mean putting his Congressional seat in limbo (YOLO I guess?). Even Mark Sanford has thrown his hat in the ring. But I also think it’s safe to say that most - if not all - eyes are on Darline Graham Nordone. I was shocked - as I think most were - to see her announce she would run for a full term. So what’s her operation looking like so far? Not. Bad. She’s inherited her brother’s team and it shows. They are top-notch. They know the state inside and out and they know how to win. Full stop. Security is Strength, the super PAC that used to back Lindsey, is already running ads supporting her candidacy. She has a great campaign website and I actually really dig the branding. She’s been sending fundraising emails that lean into her brother’s legacy and the Trump endorsement. She’s upping her game on social media (slowly but surely). She may be a novice as a candidate, but her campaign team is chock full of experienced pros.

And look, I obviously don’t know what’s going to happen. I’m getting a ton of Russell Fry ads right now and he speaks the language of the hardcore South Carolina conservative. Ralph Norman has a lot of money he can spend if he wants to. Mark Sanford has a natural, die-hard constituency that makes him a serious contender. But people shouldn’t count out Darline, and you heard it here first.

—TikTok is in again

It’s now officially A-ok for government officials to use TikTok on their government phones, in case anyone was wondering. If you weren’t wondering, you probably aren’t alone but at least it explains why DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin is now on TikTok. And other cabinet secretaries, I guess? I’m kind of ambivalent about Republicans being on the app at this point. As you ALL know, I used to be a hard no. Now? Eh. If the security concerns truly are a thing of the past, then I guess I’m team “whatever floats your boat.” Although I still maintain that we don’t HAVE to be on the app just to reach the youths and appeal to voters with a winning message. I mean, we can talk about housing affordability on Instagram too, right? Right.

Anyway, Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson also got some play this week for being on TikTok and a lot of people gave his staffer some kudos for posting this video. And while I’m not here to single out one staff member or congressman…for me this falls somewhere between cringe and cute and I’m still struggling to decide which way I’m leaning. My philosophy of political social media is very, very simple: a post needs to be both entertaining and have a point. That’s it. Do both. It’s not hard. The bar here is very, very low. But I don’t understand what a 75 year old congressman from Idaho lip syncing for a few seconds to Dua Lipa accomplishes. Is it entertaining? Maybe to some people? Does it have a point? No. This one’s not bad. This one has me dazed and confused. At the end of the day…I’m very pro-content. I’m very pro candidates and officials showing some personality online. And maybe there will be a few bumps along the way as more offices try to figure this out, but let’s set some kind of standard - and meet it, is all I’m saying! That goes for everyone.

—Bull S***

I don’t know really anything about Ben Butler, a Republican who’s running for Congress in Florida, except that I saw his ad this week and I gotta say - I like it! It’s giving me major Joni Ernst/Squeal vibes.

Sentry is built by Powers Interactive and shouldn’t cost you anything. So it doesn’t.

Political campaigns spend countless hours trying to figure out who’s doing what. Stop guessing.
Sentry lets you search political ads by race, candidate, and advertiser across Google and Meta. Track spending, monitor changes the same day, and keep tabs on CTV.
If competitive ad intelligence matters to your work, check it out:

Former Governor and Congressman Mark Sanford jumped into the South Carolina Senate race this week.
Rep. Nancy Mace endorsed Ralph Norman in the South Carolina Senate primary.
Rep. Andy Biggs is officially the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Arizona.
Vivek Ramaswamy is spending a s***-ton of money on his race in Ohio. His opponent, Amy Acton, is barely spending anything and somehow the race is still tied?
A group called More Jobs, Less Government is running an ad attacking “independent” Montana Senate candidate Seth Bodnar for running a “good ol’ boys club” while president of the University of Montana.
Washington Rep. Michael Baumgartner is spending money trying to elevate his preferred Democrat opponent.
And not for nothing: a CNBC survey finds that housing costs are the top political issue for voters ages 18-34.

Facebook

Google

🛜 Some good reading: How brands can create a presence on Reddit in 2026.

😝 The 9 new emojis that sum up 2026? See them here.

🤖 Ok: The New York Times published an interesting piece this week about how campaigns are recognizing the need to tailor their online presence to please AI chatbots. Honestly, this is something we should all be thinking about right now. Here’s a snippet:

Caucus AI ran an experiment to see how long it took for content newly published to Wikipedia to end up in a chatbot’s answer. The result: about 12 minutes. That suggests that candidates can already insert their own information into an A.I.’s responses by tweaking public information “quickly, unvetted and without anyone on the other side watching,” the company wrote in a blog post about its findings.
Caucus AI is now tracking what chatbots are saying about all Senate, House and gubernatorial candidates, finding that some candidate messaging has an unusual ability to break through. For example, when the group asked three different chatbots about Mary Peltola, the Democratic challenger for United States Senate in Alaska, they all cited her unique slogan: “Fish. Family. Freedom.”

Nothing this week! #SadPanda

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

If you know me, you know I love a good marketing campaign built around nostalgia. Enter: Spangler Candy Company, the “sweets maker” behind candies like Dum Dums, sweethearts and Bit-o-Honey. Marketing Dive took a look at the company’s approach to its candy arsenal:

“These brands have incredible history to them,” said Evan Brock, vice president of marketing at Spangler. “That history makes them very difficult for competitors to come and take their place. You obviously can’t replicate that kind of nostalgia, that kind of legacy overnight.”

And:

“The truth is, other marketers, other brands would kill for the kind of nostalgia that our brands have, but there is a process of keeping them relevant with consumers that just has to be done to sustain these types of legacies,” Brock said.

Indeed.

From the other side of the aisle:

William Lawrence, who’s running for Congress in Michigan’s 7th District, confirmed on X that yes, this is a real text that was sent out:

Honestly, gotta give him props for this. 10/10 no notes. Love it.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

What I learned after posting on Threads

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:01:56 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Let’s get to some scrolling!

Today's edition of Doomscroll is brought to you by THE tool that helps you search political ad spending by race, candidate and advertiser...Keep scrolling for more.

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question on what lessons we should be learning from the corporate marketing world! I wouldn’t say the responses were overwhelming? But I did get a few interesting comments:

We don’t pay enough attention to the marketing funnel. I did a few years in corporate marketing and god love the user journey. Campaigns want donations and conversions immediately, and I get why. But if you don’t spend time on awareness/name ID, and nurture/persuasion, then your campaign will constantly be scrambling. Invest in the upper funnel, be rewarded in lower funnel activations. Know what’s a great medium for that? Digital.
In the business world, expertly-written sales pages (or letters) are the ultimate tool to win tough purchases. I often think about how sales pages can be used to win votes. So, instead of counting on your 8.5x11 or :30 to persuade and assuage all concerns, direct the audience to a long sales page and persuade them there, where you have the space to handle every possible objection. Prohibitively expensive for anyone not a statewide? Probably. The most persuasive tool to win the hardest votes? (convincing Ds to vote R, or convincing people who never vote to vote now) Seems possible.
1) Employ common sense (difficult for 20-somethings); 2) Don’t annoy; 3) Don’t harass; and 4) Don’t be stupid. Companies occasionally fail on one or more of these metrics, but then get slapped by their customers. Customer-retention and loyalty are at an all-time low, so it doesn’t take much for a commercial customer to migrate to another firm, retailer, restaurant, etc. Translated to the political world, this means not voting for the candidate in question, voting for a primary opponent, boycotting the candidate in question in the general election, not donating funds, and spreading the word about how harassing this candidate is. Hence, a political campaign’s digital operation -- as with all other key aspects of the campaign -- must have adult supervision. Trump himself has been victimized by 20-something Social Media implementers who lack any overall context for what they are doing, who lack common sense, and who have no political maturity or sophistication with regard to how their tweets/submissions would be received, or perceived.

Ok I’ll be REAL honest: to the person who talked about using “expertly-written sales pages,” wtf are you talking about? Like, a website? An online pdf? What are we really talking about here? Because hey, if it works it works, but I’m not exactly picking up what you’re putting down. I missed Sales 101 in college.

Here’s another confession: I too, suck at the marketing funnel, but I don’t think I would if I had more budget to like…make a funnel at all. Know what I mean? Republicans don’t spend early on awareness and persuasion. For all the talk about the right’s amazing content ecosystem, campaigns themselves just don’t invest in this. I understand why even if it grinds my gears. But it’s harder to focus on a marketing funnel when budgets are tight and timelines are even tighter.

High-five to the person who plugged common sense.

OK moving on…

I regret to inform you that I have become...a Threads person? Not like, one of those Threads people. Let’s not get carried away or anything. But I am experimenting in a “let’s see where this goes” type of way. So far I’ve come to an uncomfortable conclusion: Threads is…kind of nice, ugh, which feels a little bit off.

A few days ago I posted something completely random and innocuous about my toddler’s eating habits. No strategy. No political angle. No attempt at engagement bait. I wasn’t trying push some angle or hop on a trend…

It was, however, something I’d never post on X (doesn’t fit mah brand over there!). I typed it out sometime after dinner and before doing some dishes…and just hit post. Easy peasy.

It ended up getting more than 1,600 likes, almost 300 replies, and 30 shares. And 95% of those replies were earnest answers from people genuinely trying to offer reassurance or advice. And that’s my plug for Threads: it’s interesting over there. X may drive the conversation (and I still love me some X for all kinds of reasons!), but I’m starting to wonder if a lot of it isn’t actually happening over on Meta’s competitor. It’s way less political. It’s more casual. More honest?

Anyway, all this got me thinking - which brings us to this week’s One Question. We spend so much time talking about Facebook, X, and Instagram that we sometimes forget there are entire communities thriving elsewhere. Threads. Reddit. LinkedIn. Snapchat. Substack. Truth Social. Each one has its own culture, its own norms, and its own audience.

The internet has become much more fragmented than it was five years ago (newsflash). So here’s what I want to know: At the end of the day, we’re in the voter contact business. Instead of driving door knocks, we’re driving clicks but that doesn’t erase the same principle: getting in front of the right voters with the right message. And yeah, sometimes the message isn’t tax cuts or border walls. Sometimes it can be your vitamin regimen or the latest parenting hack. The point is connection.

So with all that being said, here’s this week’s One Question: Outside of Facebook, X, and Instagram...which platform do you think campaigns should be paying a lot more attention to this cycle? Which ones do you think campaigns will - or should - experiment with?

Vote

The above quote comes from Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, in an essay he wrote this week about how to best regulate the future of Artificial General Intelligence. Are you getting tired of all the AI handwringing? Yeah I know, me too. But these guys (Hassabis, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, etc) are having a moment right now and they’re using it to call for the U.S. government to step up and oversee their industry. Why? Because, as Hassabis puts it, they’ve “essentially found a way to make sand think,” and that calls for some serious legislating already! Maybe he’s right. Maybe his solution (an industry-funded oversight body) is the right one. But when the next phase of civilization is on the line, maybe it’s at least worth discussing. Just a thought!

—Playing with fire?

Right Direction Wisconsin - a super PAC tied to the Republican Governors Association (whatup!?) is dropping some serious dough in the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary. Not the GOP one. The Dem one. The 30-second spot, which is running in the bluer parts of the state, slams Dem candidate Francesca Hong for being anti-ICE and too liberal. AH HA WE SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. The ad itself is pretty standard fare. So will the $2 million gamble pay off? Hard to say. But so far this year it does seem like the libs are getting more liberal so there’s always a chance. And…a race between Tom Tiffany and Ms. Hong would be quite the interesting set-up. But while Tiffany seems to be a good candidate - and I know basically nothing about Wisconsin politics - there’s always the chance Republicans get exactly what they want, only to watch Hong beat our guy in November. And that, ladies and gentlemen, would suck.

—Lahn Land

We are entering prime prime advertising opportunity for the midterms. And by that I mean the General Election ad wars have officially begun! What you want: Ads that stick. What you don’t want: Ads that cause unnecessary controversy, which is perhaps what we’re getting in the Iowa gubernatorial race. RGA Right Direction PAC released an ad back in May that attacked Sand over millions of dollars that went missing during his tenure as auditor. It cited reporting for a local news station that - after the ad came out - did its own story about how the spot “omits context.” Groan. Even the Reddit threads piled on and Sand put out his own response ad. But that didn’t stop the Zach Lahn campaign from releasing its own attack ad on the same topic. They’ve spent roughly $68,000 in the last week or so promoting the spot on YouTube. Hhmmm. Anyway, I actually mostly like Lahn’s ad for what it tries to accomplish: Paint Sand as an unserious guy unfit for the job. But now Iowa political observers are going to be on high alert and ready to nitpick any spot that comes out of the pro-Lahn camp between now and November and that’s not exactly a great place to be in. Just saying.

Anyway, fwiw: Sand is spending heavily on YouTube as well - $210K in the last week - going negative on Lahn. Knives are out.

—Nice stuff
Btw…just saying…I really like this WinRed page from Mike Johnson:

Sentry is built by Powers Interactive and shouldn’t cost you anything. So it doesn’t.

Political campaigns spend countless hours trying to figure out who’s doing what. Stop guessing.
Sentry lets you search political ads by race, candidate, and advertiser across Google and Meta. Track spending, monitor changes the same day, and keep tabs on CTV.
If competitive ad intelligence matters to your work, check it out:

A new Andy Biggs ad features the voice of Charlie Kirk. Watch here.
A new Politico report calls out how Dems have a huge cash advantage in key Senate races. Ugh.
Looks like Elon and Vivek have made up! The gazillionaire donated $5M to Ramaswamy’s gubernatorial run in May
Looks like Darline Graham is considering running for a full term to replace her late brother in the senate.
Former Governor and Congressman Mark Sanford looks to be making moves as well.
After hinting for days at a run, Rep. Ralph Norman has finally announced his bid for South Carolina Senate.

Facebook

Google

🙌 X has tweaked its algorithm to make its feed more friendly…apparently in response to what Threads is doing. Interesting!

🤔 Hmmm…Science says AI-generated content gets less engagement?

🕺 Some Instagram Reels stats for 2026. Example: 30-60 seconds appears to be the sweet spot for reach.

🤖 Fact: AI is coming to political texts. Even Eric Wilson says so!

🌎 The NYT did a 20-year retrospective of all of Twitter’s greatest hits. Take a look.

📈 Some tips about how to get more reach on LinkedIn…from LinkedIn. Pretty straightforward!

The MAGA right is going after…Brad Parscale.

Stand Together is hiring a Social Media Manager. Details here.

Big congrats this week to the teams at 1903 and Numinar! I’m not saying Michael Beach is out for world domination, but I’m maybe not NOT saying that, either, if you follow me. The 1903 portfolio is looking pretty impressive, if you ask me. And I like this very much as a sign that Republicans are taking voter contact seriously, investing in relationship organizing, and getting serious about embedding those things into a campaign’s digital operation. Breaking down the campaign silos - one acquisition at a time! I dig it.

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the tracks:

If you thought we were done talking about AI today, you were wrong! Sorry! I thought this was really interesting: Anthropic is out with a new ad that has people a little freaked out. Tech Crunch has more here. I’m torn. It’s obviously a thoughtful ad, but the tone is…weird. Not what we’re used to getting from the corporate world these days. I understand trying to position yourself as the company best suited to deal with the AI dilemma, but give us a little hope, right? The ad ends with words on screen that say “There’s hope in hard questions,” but it doesn’t really offer any. It’s…strange. So much about advertising is about feelings. How does something make us feel. Hopeful? Optimistic? Or melancholy? How about weirdly sad for an era that seems to have been lost to the dustbin of history (the pre-AI world)? Is it time to mourn yet again for simpler times? This ad makes me think so. Sorry, Anthropic! You perhaps missed the mark with this one.

From the other side of the aisle:

A lot of Republicans were giving Annie Andrews a hard time for this fundraising text in the wake of Lindsey Graham’s untimely death. Andrews is the Democrat that Graham was slated to face in the General Election in November. Look - I’m NO fan of Andrews and I probably would have advised against fundraising in the direct aftermath of her opponent’s shocking death…but this is uncharted territory and it’s pretty tame copy. Still not a great look, but there are so many libs out there who would have done WAY worse which means the bar for her is so low I guess I’m just not that offended by this. Le sigh. ::shrug::

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

The Fish is AI. The Campaign is Real.

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 23:00:59 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! I hope everyone had a great time celebrating Independence Day! I read that Trump aides reportedly dubbed this week’s Iran strikes "Operation Bitch Slap." Accurate nickname. And also a pretty good summary of Dirtbag Democratic Socialist Graham Platner's week.

Let’s get to some scrolling!

I want to start this Doomscroll by offering condolences to the family and friends of Sen. Lindsey Graham. Whatever your thoughts about him are politically, he was, by all accounts, a genuinely warm, funny, and friendly guy. He had a wealth of friends in the Palmetto State, all of whom are mourning today. To honor his legacy, I offer you this video from 2015, posted this morning by Bubba Atkinson on X. For those of you who are too young to remember, this video made WAVES when it came out. And IMHO has gone down in history as one of the best uses of video by a politician - no joke. No sitting senator would even deign to film something like this! But Sen. Graham did. A silly video. Millions of views. A guy who didn’t take himself too seriously. A wicked sense of humor. Thanks for the memories, Senator.

Today’s edition of Doomscroll is sponsored by RumbleUp. Thank you, RumbleUp!

Thanks to everyone who answered the previous One Question about the biggest problem facing political texting these days. You guys had some thoughts and not a lot of consensus. Think I’m joking? I’m not. Here are some of the responses:

Bad actors take the cake. “Pay your invoice”, “Complete your profile”, and all these Trump national emergency texts are turning people off. And we’re hearing it on the ground. Unsubscribe and you get a text from the same org but with a different number. It’s hurting all of us.
The biggest problem is that too many consultants are financially incentivized to sell legacy broadcast texting because the markups are enormous; often allowing them to keep 70% or more of the revenue (real example I uncovered). Meanwhile, the research has moved on. Multiple studies now show that AI-powered conversational texting is substantially more effective at persuasion than one-way blasts. If the goal is changing minds rather than preserving an old business model, campaigns should be investing in conversations, not just messages.
The data sharing bombarding individuals. I’ll be the first to admit there’s got to be a way to support republican candidates up and down ballot. But I know what I sign up for and can tell when my number is on new lists. If I know the process, understand the why, and am not reading texts anymore because I get WAY too many, then I am sure voters are doing the same. Only they are angry because they don’t know how they got on so many lists.
Perfect time to ask this - I would love to know which vendor owns this short domain - https://e.consrvaid.com. I got 87 P2P texts (yes I counted) with that short domain between 10am and 8:30pm on 7/1. Actually make that 88 - just got another while submitting this at 8:35pm. You are the problem!
I’m still seeing campaign plans that have up to $0.15/SMS with no volume price breaks. When margins are that high, texting will be overused to fund company retreats without a single strategic thought, and the list will be unusable when it’s most needed. I wouldn’t worry about regulators more than carriers...imagine any congressional hearing on guns, A.I., or Meta terms of service. They don’t know what they’re talking about but feel the need to talk, so they become an embarrassing meme and then give up. The FCC won’t be pressured into anything before 2029 unless Trump Jr. stops cashing surrogate/endorsement checks.
It doesn’t help when six signers are all sending the same message.
DOGE checks and telling people to update their preferences to get “less texts” while driving them to a landing page is a massive issue. Yes I’m sure it works, but at what cost? If I were a donor getting these texts non stop, I’d get a new number. It’s fraud and it’s out of control.

Ok so we’re kind of all over the place on texting…or are we? I AM picking up a general theme, I think: texting is getting a little out of control because it’s paying for too many beach houses? Say what?? Look, I am not judging. We gotta make a buck or two. But also we have to win elections. I’m extremely curious about the AI conversation thing. And whoever owns e.consrvaid.com…Explain yourself!

This week’s One Question is maybe a little random. Maybe a little different. It’s this: We’re always looking for ways to innovate and do more - especially on the fundraising front. So…What lessons should political, digital operatives be borrowing from the corporate marketing world? I try to force us to think about this each week in my “From the other side of the tracks” section - in case you hadn’t noticed. I find the corporate marketing world to be pretty interesting and worth paying attention to. And I’m constantly seeing emails hit my inbox from Ulta or Zappos or Brooklinen(!) and think to myself “wow that’s a creative email.” Anyone else? What have they figured out that we just haven’t? Emails, websites, loyalty programs, customer experience, branding, offers, personalization - it’s all fair game!

Educate us

The above quote comes from Meta’s Chief Data Officer, Alex Schultz, in a LinkedIn post responding to backlash about the company’s announcement that it will be rolling out new AI tools to “fully create and target campaigns”. Agencies are freaking out. And maybe rightfully so. In Meta’s never-ending quest to disrupt the traditional ad business and take more and more of our money, this step is…a big one. If Meta’s AI tools will create an entire campaign from start to finish…what are agencies to do? It's a good question, but Schultz is here to remind everyone the freak-out is premature. They’re not trying to put the ad agencies out of business, silly people! They’re just going to help agencies reorient their priorities and focus on the stuff that REALLY matters! Uh…like what? He doesn’t *exactly* say, but they’ll figure it out eventually, right? (And by “they” I also mean us. Campaigns. Like, when Meta takes over the world we’ll just figure it out…Right?). Just a thought!

—Fortune cookie foreign policy

I like a nice, quirky political ad every now and again. I do. I’m pretty sure this latest ad from Sen. Marsha Blackburn - who’s running for governor of Tennessee - fits the bill. But is it a home run? Not so sure. See, I like Chinese immigrants. I like Chinese restaurants. And I like fortune cookies. To me, Chinese takeout is every bit as American as the hotdog my toddler devoured on July 4th. So while I appreciate the quirky nature of watching a candidate crumple up fortune cookies to make a point about bad communist China, the whole time I watched it I kinda felt bad for Chinese Americans?

That said, this gubernatorial primary has, until now, been a little bit of a sleeper. But with less than a month until Election Day, things are heating up. Blackburn is more than likely going to run away with it, but her primary opponent, Rep. John Rose is making things at least a little bit interesting. Enough so that Blackburn-aligned Tennessee Freedom Fund is running ads attacking him for being too friendly to ::checks notes:: China. Rose himself is running an interesting ad that hits Blackburn for being a career politician (We owe her our thanks - but not the governor’s office) while admitting in the ad that he has voted for her. It’s an interesting way to go negative without being too negative. The other elephant in the room: The missing Trump endorsement. The president has reportedly decided to sit this one out, and that's no doubt a real burr under both their saddles.

—Can’t put that FISHBACK in the water

SPEAKING OF QUIRKY POLITICAL ADS…Ted Cruz recently helped form an antisemitism group called The Front Line. Cool. Great. Their first target? Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback. This ad is…something else. A few things are interesting about this. I mean, Fishback is trailing in the polls, so why bother spending six figures against him unless…you’re plotting a presidential run. Indeed, even Axios pointed out that this is about as clear a sign as we’ll get that the senator from Texas is laying the groundwork for another presidential campaign. Look, if he can do that by carving out a conservative, antisemitism lane…good for him. And getting involved in a Florida race - a state that’s critical for anyone with presidential ambitions - makes sense. But also, this move is interesting simply because of the AI component. It’s AI-generated, discloses that fact prominently on screen, and it’s totally absurd - which is the whole point. I think voters will react just fine to this kind of AI-generated ad. An AI-generated talking fish? Cool. An AI-generated crying mother? Maybe not as cool. Anyway, if nothing else, consider me hooked (get it?). I’ll be waiting with breathless anticipation to see what this group does next, and I hope whoever pitched this in the strategy meeting gets a raise.

—Jackson in Georgia
This has been out for a couple weeks now, but I gotta give Rick Jackson’s team kudos for this stellar ad that goes hard against his Democrat opponent, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. It’s straightforward, to the point, and does a great job building a narrative around her abysmal tenure as mayor. This is great storytelling!

—FAFO
From the mixed-up files of “the Libs will find anything to get mad about,” this week they pounced on Texas Rep. Brandon Gill for a fundraising ad that included a picture of his 2 children, but not his wife.

Look, I don’t know that much about Brandon Gill except that he’s had a few clips go viral and he occasionally pops up in in my Instagram Reels feed. And I certainly don’t know, off the top of my head, who’s handling his fundraising program. But I seriously doubt there was any kind of conversation about leaving his Indian-American wife out of the creative so he can appeal to all the white nationalist donors out there. Is this photo a bit strange for a fundraising ad? Sure, maybe. But then again I’m also part of the FAFO fundraising school of thought - the “let’s f**k around and find out if this works” contingent. Try anything. The outrage here is dumb and will only solidify Gill’s status as a rising conservative star.

RumbleUp 3.0 is here - six years of client feedback, rebuilt seamlessly in one platform.

The same sending engine you and 3500+ clients nationwide have trusted for years, now with customizable dashboards, AI-powered drafting, response and segmentation tools, smarter navigation and improved conversation management. Since the core sending engine did not change, your 98% delivery rate and your team's muscle memory will carry straight through November.

Every serious program will be texting this cycle. Run yours on a platform redesigned for how your team works.

Ken Paxton raised $9 million in Q2. Not bad.
Um, the new GOP nominee for governor in Colorado “refuses to say how many people he’s killed.” But he looks like a nice guy on his website! So I guess that’s something?
The Kansas gubernatorial primary is heating up… The Kansas Comeback PAC is hitting frontrunner Ty Masterson with ads attacking him for giving tax breaks to data centers.
A recent poll has Dan Sullivan leading Mary Peltola in the Alaska Senate race 47-45.
And in Iowa, Ashley Hinson is leading Josh Turek 48-46.

Facebook

Google

📺 Instagram TV? Coming soon to a living room near you!

🤳 Meta has launched a new app called Pocket, which allows you to enter prompts for AI to build “gizmos.” I don’t know exactly how this pertains to us, but I’m 100% willing to find out!

💵 According to AdImpact, political ad spending reached $4.43 billion by June 30. They’re projecting a total of $11.6 billion to be spent during the 2026 cycle.

🌎 Threads is finally finding its place in the world. Nice.

Congrats to Stephanie Young for joining Frontline Strategies as President of Advertising & Operations
Chauncey Southworth has a nice post about what the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance ruling means for ad spending.
The AI survey I helped distribute with Katie Harbath, Kyle Tharp, and Eric Wilson was referenced in the NYT in a recent piece about how campaigns are using AI. Eric even got some nice photo treatment!
Word on the street is that the Nancy Mace donor list is up for sale. Does it mean what I think it means? Mace’s political career is officially done-zo? Say it ain’t so!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

If you thought all the congressional inquiries were going to hurt ActBlue…think again. Per C&E:

ActBlue just had its best second quarter for a midterm cycle.
The Democratic fundraising clearinghouse announced on Thursday that it processed $586 million for Democratic candidates, organizations and causes between April 1 and June 30, marking a 14 percent increase over the same period in 2022. It’s the highest-grossing second quarter for the organization in a non-presidential cycle.
Federal campaigns alone pulled in $388 million through ActBlue – up about 34 percent from the second quarter of 2022, the organization said. State and local candidates accounted for about $150 million. Overall, the platform processed about 15 million total contributions, with an average donation size of $39.

Welp, ok then.

From the other side of the tracks:

Welp. Sometimes AI-created ads are great and sometimes…you gotta double check the robots. REI is getting hammered for using “AI slop” in an ad that features a pretty deformed bike. How this wasn’t caught -we’ll never know. But let this be a lesson to all of us! Even companies like REI can make the mistake of trusting AI too much!

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

This gimmick needs a refresh

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 28 Jun 2026 23:01:14 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll, your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Can you believe we’re already at the end of June - or as I ALWAYS like to say - the end of Q2? I can’t either. But since next weekend is also the Greatest Holiday Of All Time AKA America’s Biggest Birthday, Doomscroll will be on hiatus. Sad! Be careful with those fireworks.

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about the biggest waste of money on a campaign. I’ll be honest: you guys humbled me. I thought for sure most of you would spend paragraphs upon paragraphs hyper-fixated on direct mail. I was wrong. I stand corrected. I is sorry. Truth be told, several of you popped into my google form to DEFEND the old-school tactic (YES, REALLY). I see the analog trend is really going strong. I respect it. I do. That said, a lot of you hated on yard signs. I don’t know…I kind of get yard signs. In fact, I *might* even go so far as to say I’m a fan. Do they win elections? No. But would I even know who Danny Ford is (don’t ask) if I hadn’t been forced to drive past millions of his yard signs in the last couple of weeks? I mean…I don’t know. Who’s to say.

Anyway, since it was an open-ended question, here are some of your comments defending DM:

To those of you that say Voter Contact mail, let me tell you that I am on an AAPC committee with some libs and they blame some of their recent losses on NOT doing mail like our side. And I myself have been swayed by mail because it stands out more than anything else. And no, I am not in the voter contact business.
Direct mail is the best use of money along with a good paid door program. And I’m saying that as someone who runs a digital firm.
Direct mail still works

Here are some comments that didn’t mention yard signs:

Broadcast!! So expensive to blanket a DMA when you could better spend and target that budget on streaming. It’s dying. It has its place on some campaigns still depending on the market. But the death rattle is rattling and the deniers are denying.
Fundraising ads or tv buys in big markets
Text messages requesting money. Overwhelmingly frustrating potential donors. I would vote for anyone who pledged to make these illegal
TV ad spending
Over staffing
Lead generation that does not require a donation. It’s a waste because you’ll never inbox.
I think the biggest waste is actually all the grifting that goes on. That doesn’t happen as much on the left. We have to do something about it.
Broadcast TV outside of typical viewing hours on obscure channels is something that I see a lot of campaigns waste money on. Also see way too often campaigns will put a ton of effort into setting up for an event on AV, space rental, etc., and put zero effort/money into crowd building for the event.
No first party audience targeting, CPMs too high (non-skip) for the content with the lack of audience targeting, and the general whack-a-mole of publishers you’ll to exclude, plus the horrendous long tail of content you are running on. YT has a place in media plans but when you exclude YTTV you have to look at the content you are running on without the 1st party OR even retargeting capabilities.
To quote John Wanamaker: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don’t know which half.” Sadly that hasn’t changed much even though we can now target far more effectively.

Ok, this week’s One Question is in a similar vein and it’s this: What’s the biggest problem facing political texting right now? It’s still a great tactic (duh), but it’s no silver bullet. And depending on who you ask, it’s also become one of the most polarizing tactics in politics.

Is the problem that campaigns send too many texts? That voters are getting numb to them? That regulators are circling? That bad actors are poisoning the well for everyone else? Diminishing returns? Or is the world of political texting totally fine? You tell me!

Let's talk about texting

The above quote comes from a guy named Carlos Odio, who’s the co-founder of a political data firm called Equis Research. He was quoted in a CBS News article this week about how crucial Latino voters will be in the 2026 Midterms. In Texas in 2024, for example, 54% of Latino voters went for Trump. This year may be a different story. And guess what issue they care about most? The economy, stupid! And not for nothing, but we ARE in the messaging business (sorry comms friends - it’s true!), so we need to get this right over the next 4 months. Just a thought!

—Please don’t make me be IT

The other day I got an email telling me that my payment request had been cancelled (??), my “profile sync with MAGA47” had failed (??) and I needed to review and update my “details.” A couple days later I got an email saying I needed to “approve my shipping address.” And those are the more creative examples. Usually it’s something like “help us fix our records!” or “your name is missing!” Or my most recent personal favorite: I just missed a call from Trump himself (!!) My phone! IS IT WORKING?!

I could go on. To be honest, I’m a little…tired of this gimmick, and I think it might be time for a hard refresh.

The MAGA47 failure email came from a sender called “MAGA Alerts” but it’s really some guy named Brinker Harding who’s running for Congress in Nebraska. I’ve literally never heard of him, but the absurdity of his prospecting email made me click the link (also, with a name like Brinker OF COURSE he’s from Nebraska!). His WinRed page has zero to do with some payment failure that I needed to correct. Nothing about a profile sync. Just a plea for a donation.

I don’t blame the guy (or his team!) for trying to raise a buck. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, my friends, and I understand the need to generate a “curiosity gap.” We’ve been doing it for years: “Read this ASAP!” “You won’t believe your eyes!” ::Click:: Unfortunately…those things don’t work like they used to. Enter: 2026 and the “your profile isn’t syncing OMG!” era.

All of a sudden we sound less like political campaigns trying to make the world a better place (womp, womp) and more like IT departments trying to solve a technical glitch for only the most amazing patriots. I’ll be honest with you guys: I can barely set up a google voice number. Please don’t make me pretend to be IT just to raise money.

The thing is…it’s all so short-sighted, right? I’m sure that telling people there’s a glitch in the membership profile generates donations (ugh), but how many loyal, long-term supporters are we creating if every click comes at the expense of a little more trust? Maybe some people don’t think that’s an issue. Ok, fine. Maybe Brinker Harding is just trying to get to first base before weighing the pros and cons of this particular tactic. All I’m saying is there’s a big difference between a little mystery and…a little deception. And shouldn’t we be trying to get people to wonder WHAT happened and not WHETHER something actually happened?

Anyway, I’ll get off my soapbox now...while I wait for the next email informing me that my Patriotism Authentication Token has expired and my Freedom Firewall needs updating.

—Don’t mess with Texas

Texas Democrats held a convention in Corpus Christi this week, and “Governor Hot Wheels’” team produced a nice microsite hitting the radical left called RadicalTexas.com. I dig it. The site has everything you’d expect…along with a “live” look at Democrats in Texas featuring none other than James Talarico himself. Nice.

Gotta say, I’m loving the patriotic merch lately. Shout-outs this week go to the NRCC for the mug and Senator Kennedy for the t-shirt! Get yours here and here. I especially like the shirt. Very on-brand.

The Maine gubernatorial race is set: Republican Bobby Charles will face Democrat Hannah Pingree in November
A new Iowa Senate poll had Democrat Josh Turek leading Ashley Hinson 47 to 45%
President Trump endorsed John James in the Michigan gubernatorial race
The Club for Growth endorsed Mike Mazzei in the Oklahoma gubernatorial race

Facebook

Google

💰💵 According to analysis from the Center for American Women and Politics, only 38% of the total money donated to congressional candidates in 2026 so far came from women. Another interesting stat? Women only contributed 29% of all money donated to Republican congressional candidates so far this year. Wow.

🗣️ Meta has launched a new app called Forum - a standalone platform that’s centered around Facebook groups. Designed to be a space for deeper conversations and AI-driven answers, a the “app loads a user’s existing Facebook groups, profile, and activity after sign-in, and organizes its feeds around group conversations rather than trending content.”

📊 A new Gallup poll says only about 7% of Americans say they get news from AI. 54% get news from social media! Read more.

☹️ Interesting read about how people react more negatively to an emotional message IF they find out - or suspect - that it was written by AI. Read more.

💻 I’m fascinated by Reddit and its relevance and power online. And no, I’ve yet to use it on any campaign…but maybe we should? People trust Reddit. They use it. According to a recent blog post published by the company, 63% of “redditors say they’re more confident in decisions made based on Reddit community interactions when directly compared to other social platforms.” Also, there’s this:

Reddit is designed for decision-making because information isn’t presented in a silo, it emerges through dialogue. Across thousands of communities, people search and navigate real conversations, which often surfaces different sides of a decision as people work through it in real time.

Just saying…maybe there’s untapped potential here?

Rory McShane has an interesting piece in Campaigns and Elections about the strategy that got David Flippo the win in Nevada’s 2nd congressional district. Read it here.
NOTUS did a little write-up of the “Big Dog Strategies effect” this week after Pamela Evette lost in Tuesday’s run-off in South Carolina. Read it here. Woof.
An anonymous tipster used the gossip button this week to share that they spotted Campaign Engine folks scoping out office space in DC! Yes, it’s happening. And let this be a lesson to you all: either get those disguises ready for those building tours or be prepared to have it appear in Doomscroll! 😆

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

Got a kick out of reading Kyle Tharp’s “I’m a Jon Ossoff rally truther” essay this week. Tharp writes:

Much of that hype comes from online videos featuring his perfect delivery of some real zingers in front of cheering crowds at what appear to be massive campaign rallies. He’s often standing at a podium with an adoring audience framed behind him, the camera below him, the lighting just right. These videos have racked up millions of views across social media platforms over the past year, and they give off the look and feel of a final get-out-the-vote rally for a presidential campaign.
But what if they aren’t real?

Indeed. You should read the whole thing. I’m generally with Kyle in his analysis: The discipline is extraordinary. But eventually? People will get bored of the always-perfect, always-on candidate. Also, Kyle isn’t the only one calling Ossoff out on this!

From the other side of the tracks:

Fitting for this week: A round-up of some of the best patriotic packaging for America 250! See ‘em here.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

I regret to inform you that AI isn't the problem

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 23:01:27 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Happy Father’s Day to all the dads reading this! May you never forget to put sunscreen on your children at the pool. Ok, let’s get to some scrolling.

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about whether Republicans need their own ESP. I’ll be honest: You guys didn’t seem to care about this question. I got a decent number of responses but the count dropped below average enough to tell me one of two things: Either you guys are tired AF of me asking about inboxing, or the UFC fight on the White House lawn was simply too distracting last Sunday and a poll about email just couldn’t compete. Either way, those of you who did answer all said no - we don’t need a Republican ESP.

Someone did give a shout-out to Campaign Nucleus (what up!?). And then someone else left a long comment plugging something called Proximity. Check it out if you feel so inclined!

Anyway, let’s move on. This week’s One Question is a little different because I’m really starved for some hot takes right now: What (in your opinion) is the single biggest waste of money on political campaigns? It’s fine if most of you say Direct Mail, but also…think outside the box! There’s no wrong answer! Unless you say “the digital consultant” in which case I’ll meet you outside.

Answer Here

The above quote is a line from a very good piece in Pirate Wires about the rise and fall of Medium. And sure, this may seem like a random thing to talk about this week in Doomscroll, but those of us who have been around the digital block a time or two remember very well when getting our bosses on Medium was the pinnacle of our quarter. Fellow olds: Don’t tell me you don’t remember those days. Anywho, I thought that was a particularly good line. Medium was basically too big for its own britches. And then Substack came along and well? We all know what happened next… Just a thought.

—Going low in Louisiana
Alright, here’s the deal: I have pretty laissez-faire attitude when it comes to using AI in political videos, but even I’m siding with the naysayers denouncing John Fleming for sharing an AI-generated “parody” video of Julia Letlow. In a now-deleted post, Fleming said he didn’t make the video but it’s being shared throughout the state “for a reason.” Ok… The video contained a deepfake version of Letlow saying she was planning to become a university president until her “poor husband” died and she was “appointed” to his congressional seat. Letlow pounced immediately. As did Steve Scalise and Governor Jeff Landry.

But let’s be real about what we’re really debating here. The problem isn’t AI or “AI in politics.” The problem is…::checks notes:: honesty in politics. And our industry has struggled with this for decades - long before Claude and ChatGPT came along. It’s easy to manufacture attacks to hurt your opponent. Always has been, always will be. If I use Photoshop to create a fake campaign finance report, the problem isn’t Adobe. The problem is that I created a fake campaign finance report, know what I’m saying?

So as far as I can tell, the problem here isn’t that the video was a deepfake. The problem is there are just some dishonest people trying to influence voters. And AI just happens to be the newest vehicle for an age-old political tradition: putting words in your opponent's mouth and then getting mad about them.

Here’s a great/creative example of using a deepfake that I think is perfectly fine - and not just because I’m on the right and think James Talarico is a leftwing radical who’s totally unacceptable:

This is a deepfake, sure. But it also accurately represents Talarico’s thoughts and beliefs. He may never have worn that dress and sang that song, but he does believe those things. So in my laissez-faire world of generally-acceptable AI usage, this is A-ok. Others may disagree and that’s fine. But AI video isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and policing every use case sounds exhausting and also a little pointless.

Anyway…should Fleming have shared the Letlow video? I’m going to go with no, because campaigns still have to have some ethical standards. AI is great, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and honesty should still mean something.

—Doing the Lord’s Work
Per Axios: The American Action Network is spending $3 million on ads hyping affordability. The ads will run in Florida, Virginia’s 2nd district, and Washington’s 3rd district. Thank. Goodness. Someone is focusing on this. Here’s one of the ads, hitting Florida Democrat Jared Moskowitz:

And another one hitting Dem. Rep. Kathy Castor:

All I can say is….OUCH. I can’t imagine those won’t leave a mark. More of this!

—New York State of Mind
There are some interesting primaries happening in New York on Tuesday, the least of which being the fight to see who will replace Elise Stefanik in NY-21. Trump-endorsed Anthony Constantino is going up against Robert Smullen and things have gotten more than a little nasty. Constantino ramped up his spending on Facebook ads this last week. In addition to playing up his endorsements from Trump and Congressman Jim Jordan, he’s going after Smullen hard for being part of some sweetheart deal in upstate New York that paved the way for a Chinese-linked solar farm. He’s even set up an attack site called SolarSmullen.com .

You all know how I like a good microsite. Initially, I thought “wow this is a good one.” The design is there. Kind of. There are some really nice elements, but the more I scroll the more my eyes glaze over. The font. Is too. Small. The fact checks are buried, hard to find, and harder to read. Let this be a lesson to us all: pretty design doesn’t mean much if it’s not functional. And yes, hits on political attack sites need to be dumbed down enough for a 3rd grader to understand them.

Gotta give credit where credit is due: This is quite the America 250 shirt from Sen. Tim Scott. Not bad. Not bad at all! The presidential trio on the front is A+. And you only have to chip in $17.76 to get one! Nice.

P.S. If you’re doing some cool, patriotic merch in the next few weeks, send it my way!

In Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond and Trump-endorsed Mike Mazzei are advancing to a runoff in the gubernatorial race.
In Georgia, Rick Jackson beat Trump-endorsed Burt Jones in the gubernatorial runoff.
In Alabama, Rep. Barry Moore defeated Jared Hudson in the race to replace Tommy Tuberville in the Senate.
Trump decided to hedge his bets in the South Carolina gubernatorial race by co-endorsing Alan Wilson for the June 23 runoff. He had previously endorsed current Lt. Governor Pamela Evette. This is a pretty sick burn if you ask me, but also not totally surprising for reasons I shall not go into today! South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott also endorsed Wilson on Friday.

Facebook

Google

🏛️ Florida is suing TikTok for exposing kids to harmful content. Welp. Read more here.

🤖 Speaking of which, a new report claims that there is 3x more AI Slop on TikTok than there is on YouTube. Read more.

🎦 Always nice to have a refresher: Here are 40 stats everyone should know about YouTube. Like, did YOU know that 77% of YouTube’s audience also uses Instagram! Now you do!

💵 OpenAI is partnering with LiveRamp to help build out its advertising business. Read more.

📺 Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. Nice chunk of change. Read more.

😮 AdImpact is predicting the 2026 cycle will reach $11.6 billion in ad spend. More here.

IMGE just rolled out a new tool for targeting actual decision makers. It’s called Increment Influence. Cool stuff.

This story about the shady fundraising program for Colorado gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx is…kinda crazy!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff officially welcomed Mike Collins as his general election opponent this week by hitting us with a 2-minute-long video previewing the case he plans to make against the GOPer for the next several months. I mean look, I’m obviously Team Mike Collins in this match-up, but you gotta hand it to the Ossoff team for having this thing ready right out of the gate. It’s a nice video and as far as narratives and creative storytelling goes, it crafts a nice one. Will it land? I don’t think it will, tbqh. But it’s still a nice tactic!

From the other side of the tracks:

T-Mobile is going all in on customer appreciation. I honestly love reading about marketing campaigns like this. When you make your customers happy, they make YOU happy. Kinda like the old “happy wife, happy life” saying goes, right? If a company is asking you for something (your money) they should do everything they can to deliver on making you happy. Same goes for campaigns. I want your vote. To get it, I’ll make your life better and feed you a steady stream of helpful rewards. Boom. Easier said than done, sure, but I feel like we should do more to embrace customer rewards programs in the political arena. Maybe we can’t give out loyalty points, but also…maybe we can? Here’s more:

To date, the mobile brand has provided its customers with around 1.4 billion perks from 500-plus brands, Belcher said. To celebrate the 10-year anniversary, T-Mobile is bringing back fan-favorite parks, giving out swag, and hosting events like a T-Pain concert as part of what it’s calling Member Month. The brand is also relaunching T-Mobile Travel, which offers discounts on hotels and rental cars, as part of the broader T-Life app.
Customer centrality is a big component of T-Mobile’s “un-carrier” brand strategy, which positions it as a lifestyle brand and seeks to differentiate it from other wireless providers that may focus on the more technical aspects of their services. The program has helped create some brand envy among customers of other providers, Belcher said, but the focus remains on driving T-Mobile customer engagement and satisfaction.
“We want to be famous for how we appreciate our customers,” he said.

The best part? According to T-Mobile, the loyalty goes both ways. Customers that feel appreciated stay loyal. What a concept!

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Dirty Business

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 23:01:42 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Hope everyone didn’t miss me too much last week. Let’s get to some scrolling!

This week’s edition of Doomscroll is sponsored by Reset Creative - Thank you! Scroll down for a Q&A with founder Kevin Rose.

Thanks to everyone who answered the previous One Question about the importance of Trump’s endorsement in a Republican primary. 100% of you said: it just depends. I mean…you’re not wrong. Here are some comments:

The Trump endorsement is obviously extremely helpful BUT work must be done by the endorsed campaign to boost both the name ID and the “Trump-endorsed” message. Far too many candidates take the Trump endorsement and think they’ve won without ensuring their name ID is high enough for folks to know that he/she is the Trump endorsed candidate.
I think Trump has gotten better at choosing who to endorse but it’s still not a golden scepter. In Texas - that one was easy but less see what happens with the SC Governor and Senate races.
In most situations a Trump endorsement would make the difference. Yet, as the saying goes, “all politics is local.” Cassidy was going down regardless. Before Trump’s endorsement of Paxton, a WH internal poll showed Paxton up by 12; he won by 28. In Iowa, the Trump-endorsed Rep. Feenstra, running for governor, was shut out of the runoff. This was Trump’s first statewide defeat. Why did it happen? Because Feenstra was a lousy, entitled, arrogant candidate who wouldn’t debate, do appearances, etc. He thought he had it in the bag. Hence, a Trump endorsement will not save a flawed candidate, or flawed campaign.
Ask Sid Miller, incumbent Ag Comms in Texas who lost. It can’t save a bad candidate. I think we’ll see the same thing in OK where he endorsed Mike Mazzei.

I tend to agree with the people who said a Trump endorsement is certainly helpful, but it’s not necessarily going to ALWAYS push a flawed candidate across the finish line. And even if the candidate IS a good candidate - it may not be that simple. We just had primaries in South Carolina and the Trump-endorsed candidate for governor, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, didn’t get enough votes to avoid a run-off. And I don’t *think* it’s because she’s flawed; I think it’s because there were 4 other Trump-y candidates in the race who had some loyal followings - endorsement or not. But we’ll see what happens in the Palmetto State on June 23!

Ok, for this week’s One Question I’m relying a bit on my fellow newsletter-writer Eric Wilson (hi, Eric!). Last week, his Center for Campaign Innovation published a report that can - perhaps - help explain why Republicans feel like our emails don’t land in inboxes the way they should. The culprit? Our fragmented ecosystem. We don’t have a dedicated, political, Republican ESP. We send from multiple IP addresses...But here’s the million-dollar question:

The strategic question then becomes whether to keep accepting the structural disadvantage of fragmented sending, or to work towards building the missing infrastructure.
The technical requirements are straightforward, but the real challenge is coordinated demand across the ecosystem and the willingness of right-of-center digital agencies to operate on a true shared-infrastructure provider rather than per-client solutions.

And there you have it. This week’s One Question. Do Republicans need our own dedicated ESP that we coalesce around (like the Dems do with NGP Van)? Is that the answer? Are our inboxing woes really a tech problem that’s in need of a tech solution? Sound off!

Smash this button

The above quote comes from Michael Beach in a recent issue of “State of the Screens” about the eternal tension between linear and streaming - what kind of success matters these days and the “innovators dilemma” legacy media companies are facing. It really is a good read, and you should check it out if you haven’t already. This whole dynamic is fascinating to me: winning the “TV season” does NOT equate to winning the future of TV. At least, not anymore. The companies that win the future will be the ones that abandon their linear-first business models and fully embrace streaming. It is what it is, folks. We don’t make the rules! Just a thought.

—Slumdog Slime

Well guys, we’ve always known South Carolina politics can be nasty. Just ask Nikki Haley or John McCain. I mean, you don’t just spawn a consultant like Lee Atwater without something being in the water…just sayin’. Anyway, why am I bringing this up? Because Palmetto State sliminess reared its ugly head once again last week in the run-up to the June 9 primary. See below.

Gross.

I’ve written about Rom Reddy before in Doomscroll, even highlighting his campaign website a while back. His team did some innovative stuff during the primary, including sending out a legit “Reddy Room” newspaper and hosting tele-town halls. He didn’t fundraise - on purpose - and had probably the best response to NOT getting the Trump endorsement that I’ve seen from any candidate.

Yes, he’s from India. Not sure why that matters, though, and I’m not sure who thought these texts were worth sending. Are they why Reddy ultimately came in fourth place? It’s hard to say, although I certainly hope that voters of South Caroina are better than that. And as much as I’m tempted to speculate here on who was behind them, I’ll keep those thoughts to myself for now (FOR NOW).

Look, I’m the first one to acknowledge politics can be a dirty business. I’m the first one to point out that when you’re paid to win elections, it’s can be easy - and tempting! - to move the goalposts of what’s acceptable. It is what it is. But I’d also be lying if I didn’t say these texts really make me second guess the rules around political texting. If you’re a group, consultant, or campaign that wants to throw around these kind of attacks, you should be willing to put your name on them. That’s all I’m saying. And if you’re not…should you be forced to? Does the world of texting need some guardrails that say “Hey, you can send whatever text you want, but you have to disclose who you are?”

Messages arrive one phone at a time, often with little context about who paid for them. They exist largely outside public view - unless a recipient screenshots them and shares them, nobody knows they ever happened. I’d be willing to bet this messaging never appeared in a Meta ad. I’d be willing to bet it never ran on Google. I’d be willing to bet it never showed up on a television screen or a mail piece, either.

And like I said…at the end of the day, I get the tactic. And I’m not usually one to call for regulating my own industry. I’m not even sure that’s what I’m doing right now! But let’s be real here: the more this kind of stuff gets sent (and there’s probably way worse out there, tbh) the more we’re GOING to get looked at and lawmakers are GOING to want to make this a thing. At a minimum, I at least think this is a conversation worth having amongst ourselves.

—Unfit for Maine

SLF is out with a pretty sweet website hitting Graham Platner up in Maine. First off: You know I love a good microsite. Second off: I literally cannot believe that in 2026 we still have campaigns (and major ones at that!) that are not buying every domain associated with the candidate’s name. How in the world did SLF get “GrahamPlatner.org”?? Anyway, it’s a nice, one-stop shop for anyone looking for the baggage on this guy. Is it a wall of text? Yes, but that’s pretty unavoidable with how much dirt there is on this lame-o fraudster of a lib. Honestly, there’s so much on this guy I’m actually a little jealous of anyone who gets to work on this race.

—Unfit for Prime Time?
Did you think I was just going say nice things about microsites this week? You know better than that! The Pamela Evette campaign was spending some ad dollars directing people to an attack site hitting Alan Wilson called CantAffordWilson.com. Ok, pretty clever. I was sure this was gonna be good.

I was wrong. Is it the worst I’ve seen? Heck no. But was I expecting a little more? Heck yes. Guys. I say this with all the love: I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER.

Alright, friends. This week’s edition is sponsored by Reset Creative. Founded by Kevin Rose (who also founded Advocacy Lab), Reset promises to use AI to create ads people actually want to watch. Nice. Below is a Q&A with Kevin - check it out!

Thanks, Kevin!

First off: Who are you and what do you do?
Hey, I’m Kevin, founder of Reset Creative. We make AI ads for campaigns - like the Spencer Pratt ones that have been going viral recently. Before this I built a platform called Advocacy Lab, so I’ve been in the campaign creative world for a little while.

AI in advertising. It’s here. How should campaigns be thinking about using it this cycle - and in 2028?
Right now the biggest thing campaigns can do is use it organically. Not only does it allow for endless creative possibilities to push your message, it has a virality to it that normal political ads don’t if they’re done right. Plus, if an ad does go viral on socials, there’s a good chance the press will pick it up and you could get a ton of earned media out of it. AI ads are a huge story this cycle, so make something good and your video can go viral AND get you a ton of press on top of it.

Looking toward 2028, we move past viral organic stuff into full commercials made with AI. The video models are basically there already - I’ve done more traditional political commercials with it for downballot candidates. By 2028 it’ll be all the way there, and the cost gap between an AI spot and a live shoot will be too big for campaigns to ignore.

Do you think there should be any limits to the use of AI in political advertising?
The guardrails should be around true, intentional misrepresentation - like an AI video of a candidate saying something they never said. Beyond that, I don’t see how this is much different from what we could always do, just way cheaper now. Assuming you’ve got the proper permissions for everything.

What’s the future for static ad creative - especially in the world of AI?
The image models are unreal now. Text rendering on the latest GPT and Nano Banana Pro models is basically perfect - which now means you can produce statics truly at scale.

On my non-political side I’m already seeing brands launch thousands of creatives a month, all hyper-targeted to unique audiences. The political version would be something like this: you build one base creative, then tweak it so every county - even every city - gets its own callout and imagery. Instead of “VOTERS: cast your ballot for [candidate] on November 5,” it becomes “Hey [City] voters, [local mayor] is backing [candidate] this cycle. You should too.” You could run that on Meta all day and you’d probably see a 5-10x greater lift than that generic creative.

What would you say to campaigns who are worried about voter backlash over AI content?
If you’re getting backlash, your creative was probably just lazy. People don’t get mad at good AI commercials. They get mad at slop. Make something people actually want to watch and nobody cares how it was made.

Anything you want to add?
If you want to offer your candidates AI ads this cycle, shoot me an email at kevin@resetcreative.co and let’s talk. Here’s an example video I just did for a campaign for reference. Thanks!

Belinda Keiser is running for Congress in Florida’s 22nd district
Trump-endorsed Pamela Evette and State AG Alan Wison will face off in the June 23 runoff for South Carolina governor
And in South Carolina’s 1st district, Jenny Costa Honeycutt will face Mark Smith in the runoff to replace Nancy Mace
In more South Carolina news, Lindsey Graham easily beat primary challenger Mark Lynch
Trump-endorsed Marty O’Donnell won in Nevada’s 3rd congressional district
Steve Hilton advanced to the general in the California governor’s race
Things are getting a little ugly in the Alabama Senate race…Jared Hudson is out with a new ad attacking Rep. Barry Moore’s military record
John Fleming is out with an ad attacking Julia Letlow over stock trading
And the knives are out for Trump-endorsed Mike Mazzei in Oklahoma

Facebook

Google

🤖 ICYMI…Apparently hackers were able to get Meta’s AI support chatbot to give them access to some high-profile Instagram accounts? Read more.

💯 Some tips when it comes to balancing frequency versus engagement on social media. No, volume and performance don’t always correlate. Read more.

🗣️ Edit’s Teleprompter tool is expanding to the Instagram app. Yay! Here’s more.

🤐 Last but certainly not least…apparently the ActBlue hearing this week went…ok? Not really? According to the New York Times, chief executive Regina Wallace-Jones invoked her Fifth Amendment right something like 22 times. I mean…what do you expect though, from someone who allegedly misled Congress already about ActBlue’s handling of foreign donations?

Jordan Lieberman is back with another issue of Vendor Trap. This time he explains how the DATA can spot a losing campaign before the consultants do. TL:DR: “The single most predictive variable in a digital program isn’t the budget. It isn’t creative or platform mix. It’s the start date.” Boom.
Adam Wise wrote in Campaigns & Elections about Publicis Groupe buying LiveRamp.
Katie Harbath wrote about the political divide in campaign AI use.
A little piece of gossip: A couple weeks ago I wrote about a group called 2026 Victory Committee and talked some smack about them sending out 50x impact fundraising emails (but did give them credit for their sweet WinRed page!). Anyway, according to one anonymous tipster, Launchpad is the vendor responsible and it’s actually Bo Hines’ former campaign committee trying to pay down some debt. Hhhmmm…

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

It’s a tale as old as time: One agency. One poor, overworked staffer. Multiple clients. Multiple X accounts… (This is literally my worst nightmare, btw)

From the other side of the tracks:

Ok…this story made me (and a lot of people) scratching my head. A makeup company called The Ordinary attempted a marketing stunt that involved ::checks notes:: offering free bus rides to people in NYC? What does that have to do with selling makeup, you ask?

I’m asking also. Apparently The Ordinary, which sells relatively cheap products, is trying to position itself as THE provider of affordable makeup in a city where the cost of living is extraordinarily high. Still, free bus rides to make that connection between affordability and selling makeup seems like an awfully big stretch, and I’m not surprised the stunt got shut down. Side note: if you’re going to do something like this, you should at a minimum be able to execute?

Out-of-the-box ideas are great. But they have to make sense, no? Just asking.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Flying by the seat of our pants

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 31 May 2026 23:00:31 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll, your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! First up! A tiny bit of housekeeping: Doomscroll will be off next weekend as I’m traveling for a family wedding. That is all. Now let’s get to some scrolling!

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about whether it’s still a good idea to invest in list-building on a campaign on day one. The results? 100% of you said yes and frankly, I’m pretty relieved. And not just because I like it when everyone agrees with me. Here’s a few of your comments:

Of course. A house list is an owned fundraising list, GOTV list, volunteer list, digital engagement list, and more, all in one.
One must not allow tactical problems, e.g., inboxing, to get in the way of strategic fundamentals. To ask whether any modern communications operation, e.g., political, corporate, etc., should have or build an email list is the equivalent of asking whether one should drink water.
Good idea, absolutely. BUT, in my experience, a great many clients and candidates want the instant gratification of buying a list. They don’t understand, and sometimes don’t want to learn, why buying a list is an egregious waste of money. Sometimes the idea of spending the money on a return they don’t understand promptly dies and they go buy more yard signs - or I’ll say it - set their money aside for an unnecessarily large mail budget. While the ‘treat your digital team like expert partners’ situation has improved, there are still a great many candidates and GC’s who think they know better and treat digital spends as something less impactful than it really is. The trend is moving away from this mentality, but there’s an old guard who know what they know and don’t want to hear any differently. And for every list they buy, and every potential line of campaign acquired data they put off, they will lose money and reach.

Again…I agree with all the above! Ok, this week’s One Question is more political, less digital: Is it possible for a Republican to win his/her primary without a Trump endorsement?

We’ve got a lot of primaries in June. A lot. We’ve already seen what happened in Louisiana and Texas and Kentucky. Did Trump’s endorsement matter in Louisiana and Kentucky? Yeah, I think so. Did it matter in Texas? Maybe less so? I’m generally down with the theory that Trump endorsed when he did because he saw the writing on the wall for Cornyn and wanted to be able to take credit for a Paxton victory. That said…a Trump endorsement is still a powerful thing FOR THE MOST PART, RIGHT? Even with the poll numbers? Even with the MAGA-world rifts over Iran and Israel and Epstein and gas prices, etc? I want to know what everyone thinks about the power of the Trump Endorsement at this point in the cycle. And if you’re a GOP candidate in a crowded primary in a red state or district…can you win if you don’t have it? It certainly wasn’t enough to get Burt Jones across the finish line in Georgia a couple weeks ago. Anyway…weigh in, my friends! How important is the Trump endorsement?

Sound off

The above quote comes from Patrick Ruffini, in his latest Substack post about whether Texas is actually in danger of turning blue this year now that Ken Paxton is the GOP nominee. I pretty much go along with whatever Patrick says these days, so I nodded when he said “count me skeptical.” Even when taking candidate quality into consideration (on both sides!), Democrats would have to roll back huge gains the GOP has made in an already-red state in the last few cycles. PLUS Texas has been a magnet for GOP voters of late and doesn’t necessarily house pockets of Democrat voters who have recently relocated from Ohio. Just a thought! Read his whole piece here, where he explains things much better than I do.

—No rules and no idiots, please

Alright. For the last couple of weeks I - along with Katie Harbath, Eric Wilson, and Kyle Tharp - asked readers to take a survey about the use of AI in campaigns. Well, the results are in and I have 3 big takeaways, the least of which being this: Using AI on campaigns is no longer up for discussion. We’re doing it. We’ve been doing it. We’ll keep doing it. The “should-we-or-shouldn’t-we” debate is over. Sure, we’ve spent the better part of two years arguing publicly about whether campaigns should embrace AI. Meanwhile, no one waited around for the answer. We just…embraced it. Indeed, the question now isn’t so much if campaigns are using AI tools, it’s whether anyone has any clue what the EFF they’re doing.

Spoiler: The answer is “meh”.

Here are my 3 biggest takeaways from our survey results.

ChatGPT (or more precisely: Claud, ChatGPT and then Gemini) are the new campaign interns. Right now, AI tools aren’t replacing pollsters, consultants or digital directors (Thank Jesus). They’re replacing the intern. How do I know that? 77% of respondents reported using these tools for “internal productivity” aka GRUNT WORK, aka INTERN DUTIES. 65% said they use AI for “research,” and 64% said “news summarization” aka MORE INTERN DUTIES. Look, I love interns as much as the next consultant, but if anyone should be worried about AI replacing their role in the political industry right now it should be…the entire student body at Hillsdale. On the plus side: At least every tired, worn-out campaign staffer is getting an (AI) intern now. #Winning

The technology has arrived. The norms haven’t. Campaigns are flying by the seat of their pants. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Tell us something we don’t know, Amanda!” Fair. But when it comes to AI, this is actually very true. We’re all using AI, but only 24% of respondents said their campaign or organization has a formal AI policy. A third of respondents say they have no policy at all. 14% said they disclose the use of AI. It’s basically the wild, wild west out there. So while we’re pretty much all using AI, it’s basically a free-for-all. Maybe for us free-marketers that’s ok. The invisible hand shall guide us! Maybe adoption of a formal policy should be on a case-by-case basis. I’m not over here trying to invent a problem that doesn’t need solving…but the data says we’re all basically wingin’ it at the moment.
Our biggest fear isn’t voter backlash. It’s that AI will make fools of us. Perhaps this is the most interesting takeaway? *Some* people spend a lot of time wringing their hands over whether or not voters will react negatively to the use of AI in political campaigning. Not us! We’re more worried it’ll make us look like idiots. And hey…I get it. The LLM’s don’t always get it right and that can be ::checks notes:: bad. If you’re looking for a list of zips for a county council race, you should probably double check that work. If you’re using an image generator to make a graphic with President Trump and Andy Barr, you should probably make sure you know what Andy Barr looks like because there’s a chance the AI model will not. Anyway, nearly three-quarters of respondents said that their top concern with using AI was inaccurate or misleading information, which was way ahead of the 27% who said voter backlash. (FWIW 40% said bias in AI systems and 43% said data privacy concerns). I think the calculus for most of us goes something like this: We probably won’t lose votes if voters know our ad was made with AI. We MIGHT lose votes if we try to use AI behind the scenes, don’t check the work, and then make a dumb mistake that makes the candidate look bad.

For me, the biggest insight from this survey is that AI has already become part of campaign life. Most respondents use it regularly. Most think it’s effective. Most believe it will become even more essential in the next few years.

What’s missing isn’t adoption. What’s missing is consensus. Campaigns agree AI is useful, but they don’t agree on the rules. They don’t agree on disclosure. And they’re still figuring out where human judgment ends and machine assistance begins. In other words: when it comes to AI, campaigns are still flying by the seat of their pants and that’s just the God’s-honest truth! I’ll be curious to see what Katie, Eric, and Kyle think in their write-ups!

—Rebate checks are back

Robert Smullen, who’s running to replace Elise Stefanik in New York’s 21st congressional district, seems like a nice guy. He’s even a retired Marine Corps Colonel. So why he’s sending out scammy tariff rebate check fundraising emails is beyond me. I hadn’t seen one of these come across the transom in a while…until this week. I know defenders will split hairs and argue the email doesn’t explicitly promise a rebate check in exchange for a donation…but the implication is obvious and there's no way a grandma in Iowa is going to think she’s donating to Robert Smullen and not some mysterious entity called “Rebate Check Central” that’s helping to secure her $2,000 check.

—ALIENS

The Trump Administration has released WhiteHouse.gov/aliens - complete with an alien encounter counter and an alien arrest map. Of course, this isn’t about extraterrestrials…it’s about illegal immigrants. But hey! Points for creativity. It’s sweet website. And while we’re on the subject, the Trump Administration has released quite a few websites over the last year or so that look pretty nice. Like, really nice. There’s Moms.gov, TrumpRx.gov, TrumpAccounts.gov… And more that I’m probably forgetting. Whoever’s spinning these up is doing a nice job.

—American Measure?

A group called American Measure is spending big bucks on a 30-second spot attacking Nancy Mace for being an ally of the trans movement. Earlier this month they ran another spot hitting her for being anti-Trump. I have no clue who this group is. If it’s these guys, it seems odd that they’d be singling out Mace. But the ad is pretty devastating and like I said: they’re spending a lot of money on it right now. Definitely gonna hurt!

Did anyone see this coming? President Trump has endorsed Mike Mazzei in the Oklahoma gubernatorial primary and…
President Trump also endorsed Pamela Evette in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary
And he endorsed Randy Feenstra for governor in Iowa
Are Republicans meddling in Democratic primaries by way of some mystery (I use that term lightly) PACs? Some think so…
A new poll in the New Mexico gubernatorial race has Greg Hull in the lead but businessman Doug Turner a close second.
A new poll in Georgia has Rick Jackson leading Burt Jones by one point and Mike Collins leading Derek Dooley 50-36.
Club for Growth has endorsed Andy Biggs for governor in Arizona
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott is running for a sixth term. I’m sure the RGA is relieved.
This is a great ad from the Paxton team.

Facebook

Google

🤓 An argument for human-generated content ecosystems

🙎‍♂️ The New York Times writes about how young men are apparently soooo disappointed with Trump and are now “up for grabs”

🤖 LinkedIn is cracking down on AI slop: “When content appears to be generated by AI and lacks clear perspective, it is less likely to be widely distributed beyond a person’s immediate network, which helps keep space for more thoughtful contributions.”

🖥️ The WSJ did a deep dive on problems at Trade Desk.

Congrats to Michael Beach and 1903 Group for launching a new company this week called Battleground Impact! The mission is to bring online and offline voter contact together. P.S. Many of you may not know this, but prior to launching Targeted Victory and Cross Screen Media, Beach was actually the National Field Director at the RNC. So this tracks!
Also, congrats to Andy Yates and team for the launch of Rye Digital!
Another cool feature just dropped on Inbox.GOP: Copy frequency reports. Read about it here!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

At first this week I thought I would write about the insane amount of money Tom Steyer is spending on ads in California. But then the internet gave me @TheDemocrats X account. First, it posted a bizarre photo of James Talarico. You all have seen it. But when the pic spurred an enormous amount of online mockery (I mean, who didn’t see that coming), the official account for the Dems replied with calling Stephen Miller an “ugly f****”. Do I have that right? Yes, yes i do. Well, I have thoughts and they are this: Why in the world do the Dems think acting like a surly teenager is going to win elections? We talk about brands and storytelling all the time. How does this help the Democratic Party’s brand? What story are they communicating here? I’ll tell you: A) it hurts them and B) it says “if you don’t agree with us, screw you”. I mean, I’m a hardcore GOPer so I really have no problem if the Dems want to go with that. But…seriously? I’m shaking my head over here. Literally.

And also - I know I rag on comms people quite a bit here in Doomscroll, but for once I’m agreeing with Symone and saying WHERE IS THE COMMS DEPARTMENT. How is this NOT a total abdication of like, your job?? Honestly, this level of complete incompetence is what makes me think we may actually keep the House and the Senate this November. Not mad about that.

From the other side of the tracks:

Has anyone else heard about this “Cockroach Janta Party” thing? It was started by a 30-year-old graduate of Boston University…of Indian descent…who’s living in the United States…is frustrated he can’t find a job….and wanted to respond to a derogatory comment made by an Indian politician. Anyway, I think I have all that right. Apparently millions of young Indians have joined the movement already to push back against the idea that jobless Gen Z’ers over there are lazy, chronically online, etc. Anyway, I thought it was interesting. And they have a pretty sweet website, too, for anyone looking for design inspo.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Tough Breaks

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 24 May 2026 23:01:18 GMT

Hello and welcome back to another edition of Doomscroll, your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right. With me, your host, as always. Let’s get to some scrolling.

P.S. While I hope everyone is enjoying their long weekend, I do want to take a moment to remember those who lost their lives so that we can be free. That sacrifice. It’s why we do what we do.

Thank you to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about Republican fundraising ads. I think the question was something along the lines of “what’s the dealio, yo?” Anyway, many of you had thoughts. Here are some of them:

Hasn’t this been explained a bunch? ROI. If you cannot inbox then you must make money on the first donation which is very hard to do and a lot of work. Much easier and lower risk to just run guaranteed rev share
We’re not doing it right. Most people are just resorting to scam texting now for a quick buck and ruining the GOP fundraising ecosystem.
Dems have so deeply ingrained into their messaging that sending low dollar donations will help them “save democracy” that they are able to completely blur the line between fundraising asks and making typical political advertisements. Also this seems to be more so the trend that has emerged that Republicans are better at high dollar fundraising and Dems excel at the low dollar side.
It starts and ends with Trump. Trump is the king maker. Trump is the fundraiser. Why fundraise when you can write your own checks, Trump knights you and you can win.
I don’t want to cry censorship but I have an ad account I have been fundraising from for 6+ months now. No matter what I do, I cant reach more than 700k users a month. I’ll get a frequency of 7-8x. We spent over 100k a month on FB and consistently hit 1.8-2.2x ROAS (nothing to complain about) HOWEVER I cant help but to think we are leaving money on the table as we are hitting the same 700k people 7 to 8 times instead of 2.5M people 2 times. It’s not an audience or set up issue. I have had our Facebook reps look into it and they have reassured me nothing is wrong.
Why I think our ad account is ‘flagged’ or getting reduced reach: I have tested several custom audiences from donation files optimizing for purchase conversions in 2 different ad accounts. The ad account in question, and another one. Both campaigns set up the exact same way to the exact same audience. The ad account in question will spend more on the SAME audience, will reach LESS people, with HIGHER CPMs. When I analyzed the last few months and compared the 2 ad accounts, the ‘good’ one has hit 150% more unique users wile spending 80% less money each month. It’s like the reach is getting throttled and I am unable to hit our audiences in the ‘throttled’ ad account which has much more impactful ads and many more donations raised.

First off: Thank you to whoever blamed inboxing. Not to be hyperbolic or anything, but I literally don’t think I would be able to get through my week if someone didn’t reply to a question by blaming inboxing. It’s like oxygen to me at this point.

Second, that Facebook ad account conspiracy comment is muy interesante. I want to know more! HMU if you don’t mind not being anonymous anymore: itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

Also, someone left a fun - and long - comment about Republican fundraising ads but said it was “OFF THE RECORD” and being the good non-journo that I am, I decided to honor the request. Although it pains me. But suffice to say, the general gist was: We don’t run fundraising ads because we don’t know WTF we’re doing. Harsh! But..harsh but fair? WILL WE EVER KNOW. Blink twice if I’m allowed to print the comment next week!

This week’s One Question is along the same lines. Sort of. Conventional wisdom in our biz for years now has been that building and maintaining a solid house email list is job number one of any digital team worth its salt. A digital director’s job - on day one - is to convince the campaign to invest in list-building. Day. One. You can’t rely on platforms where you don’t own your audience…You can’t fundraise effectively if you don’t have a good house file…etc etc. I generally think that advice is still true, but does everyone else? If inboxing is SUCH a problem, should we even care about building email lists anymore? At a basic, tactical level, where are we on this?

Answer Here

Alright, let’s talk about this. Briefly. So several people flagged Rob Flaherty’ post on the DNC autopsy for me a week ago, and I resisted writing about it because A) I is tired of Rob and B) Doomscroll isn’t about the left’s digital game. It’s about the right’s and I try really hard not to “chase” what the other side is doing or struggling with. But with the drama of the autopsy release this week, I think it’s time to talk about it just for a moment. The above quote is one that’s made the rounds all over the interwebs, so I’m sure you’ve all seen it by now. It’s from DNC Chair Ken Martin, who’s trying to make it absolutely, positively clear that the buck does NOT stop with him. Real profile in courage, that guy. Anyway, what, if anything, should we take away from this as digital strategists? Who the heck knows. Yes, I skimmed the autopsy. No, I don’t have strong feelings about it. It says a lot of things about digital that we already know. And a lot of things about the left that we already know. So maybe the biggest takeaway here is simply this: Let’s just let the Dems whine about the “media ecosystem” as much as they want. We’re moving on. Just a thought!

—Tough break for Team Cornyn

I really don’t have a dog in this fight other than really, really not wanting to see James Talarico become a United States Senator. That said, I wasn’t that surprised that President Trump decided to endorse Ken Paxton this week. It tracks, if you know what I’m saying. Team Cornyn’s response - at least part of it, anyway - was to go up on Facebook and YouTube with a direct-to-camera ad with Cornyn talking about how he’s voted with Trump 99% of the time. It even uses clips of Trump saying nice things about Cornyn. Overall, it’s a pretty strong ad. The other thing that jumped out at me, though? (SPEAKING OF FUNDRAISING ADS) It closes with a fundraising ask. Indeed, the whole time it plays there’s a donate QR code in the upper right corner. And it ends - not with Cornyn asking for your vote - but with him asking you to “give today.” Interesting move. Maybe tying fundraising with persuasion is the way to go these days. But I don’t know. With this race specifically, it seems like Cornyn’s more lacking in money than votes…

—Am I bad at math?

I don’t know who or what runs the 2026 Victory Committee, but they’re sending out fundraising emails promising a 50x impact as part of what they’re calling Operation Red Strike. I hate the tactic, but I have to say: the WinRed page is kind of cool. I’m not against weird strobe light things running up and down a form! However, the math has me scratching my head a little. Is it really a 50x impact if the impact widget thing isn’t calculating it correctly? Maybe don’t answer that. Maybe I’m just bad at math. Also, is the 2026 Victory Committee’s Operation Red Strike different than the Operation Red Strike emails I keep getting from Rep. Hudson and the NRCC? Is one of them ripping off the other? Or is this just the lame mess I think it is. We’ll never know.

—Start your engines!

I have to say - I’m loving all the AI/animated ads we’re seeing this cycle. This one, from Mike Rogers, is good and highly entertaining! Nice.

Welp, Thomas Massie lost his primary. So long, farewell? Tough break.
And…Trump endorsed Ken Paxton. Someone say a prayer for the NRSC.
A new poll shows incumbent South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden is definitely in some trouble in the gubernatorial primary.
This ad should just run over and over again from now until November.

Facebook

Google

✏️ For anyone who needs it: A list of some of the best social media marketing tools in 2026

📷 …And for anyone who needs it: A list of 2026 social media image sizes

🖥️ Google is testing two new AI search ads: conversational discovery ads and highlighted answers. Looks interesting.

The Team Collins War Room account got into some hot water on Friday for, what I would call a very “distasteful” tweet. Not great, guys. I know Collins came out and acknowledged and said he had parted ways with the staffer… but there’s a lesson and here and it’s pretty basic: Be careful with who you hire. If your consultant is a jerk in private eventually they’ll be a jerk in public.
Inbox.GOP users can now see how many times a piece of email or SMS copy has been sent across multiple days… This is cool.
So…I guess these 2 aren’t friends?
Congrats to JR Kennelly for launching Capital Strategic Partners
John Hall and Mike Hahn had a great conversation about online fundraising on the Digital Politics podcast. Listen to it here. But do not text John Hall if you like it!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

In an effort to get their girl, MN Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan across the finish line in the nasty Minnesota senate primary, the DLGA is out with an ad attacking Rep. Angie Craig for supporting the Laken Riley Act. This has been a huge issue in this race thanks to the ICE drama earlier this year in Minnesota, and Craig has actually already apologized and said she regretted supporting the Act, which let me remind everyone, simply mandates the detention of illegal immigrants who are accused of crimes. WOAH. To me, this is an interesting race to watch for no other reason than it’s emblematic of the fight going on within the Democratic Party right now: will the radical, far-left activist base win the day or can reasoned, moderate Dems have a fighting chance? (Although who are we kidding. Are there really “moderate” Dems anymore if all they do is cave to the far left?).

From the other side of the tracks:

Some of you might think this is dumb…and that’s just fine! But I rather enjoyed this little essay in the New York Times recently about how “whimsy” is making a comeback. Searches for “whimsy” are up 50% on Etsy. Millenialls (hi!) and Gen-Z’ers “have recast the word to characterize a lifestyle that blends playfulness, spontaneity and being present.” Here’s more:

But whimsy enthusiasts see it as a response to compounding anxieties over a series of stressors, including a challenging economy, multiple wars and a volatile presidency. For some, embracing this brand of quirkiness amid the uncertainty offers a sense of control.
“We really can’t control what our leaders are doing,” Plank said, adding, “but you can control what kind of mug you’re going to choose, what cute outfit you’re going wear and what beautiful thing you can do in your morning.”
…
The whimsy craze’s emphasis on offline activities parallels a movement by young people who are leaving behind smartphones and screens.

A-MEN.

I know I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: if we want to appeal to the youths, let’s stop focusing so much on TikTok and focus more on offline, IRL connection. Maybe you think that job doesn’t belong to the digital team. I say the digital team has long been on the receiving end of the random, “we don’t know where this task falls so let’s give it to digital” dilemma for so long, why stop now?

There’s a guy running for governor in South Carolina who’s sending out literal newspapers to voters. That’s the political campaign equivalent of whimsy. Send cute postcards to your volunteer list. Inject some fun into your yard signs. Be happy. Try it! You might like it!

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

The Differentiator

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 17 May 2026 23:01:17 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Let’s get to some scrolling.

First up: Don’t forget I’m partnering with Katie Harbath, Kyle Tharp, and Eric Wilson to conduct a survey of campaign professionals about how they’re using AI! It’s anonymous, will only take a few minutes, and we’re definitely going to share the results! Please and thank you!

take the survey

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about DATA. I gotta say…maybe the question was too vague, but this was not a favorite topic just judging by the responses. But that’s ok! We’re not always gonna bat a thousand. High-five though, to the person who said they were “building insane lookalike audiences.” Go you!

This week’s One Question is about fundraising. And advertising. Fundraising advertising. I feel like Republicans have mostly given up on this as a tactic - with a couple notable exceptions (more on that below). And I want to know what we can do to turn things around. Go through the Meta ad library. Every. Single. Dem. Ad. is a fundraising ad. Ok, like 90% of them are. Clearly, they’ve figured out something we haven’t. Or their donors are just different. More willing. Etc etc. So what are we missing? The right people? Or the right strategy/willingness to spend what it takes to get this right? Tell me!

Explain yourself here

The above quote comes from James Blair, the 36-year-old Republican strategist who will be running President Trump’s midterm strategy operation. Politico called his posture “overwhelming confidence” and I gotta say…I admire his optimism? Look, I wouldn’t know James Blair if I passed him on the sidewalk eating a hoagie from Taylor Gourmet, but I’m going to choose to believe this dude knows what he’s doing. He says we’re not going to be outspent? I’d love to see it. Just a thought!

—Gotta spend money to make money!

Alright ya’ll - like I said: I see VERY few, if any, fundraising ads from the right. That’s changed a little in the last couple of weeks with Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. It’s telling that these guys are spending money on fundraising ads while others aren’t, and speaks to what it takes to be a solid fundraiser these days: You have to have a brand. These guys do.

And when I say “brand,” I don’t mean “generic conservative guy in a navy blazer standing in front of a flag.” I mean an actual brand. A recognizable voice. A point of view. A personality people instantly recognize when they scroll past it on X, Instagram, or YouTube Shorts while laying in bed at night.

The other thing I like about these ads is what they’re not: Dire. Ominous. Threatening. There’s no doomsday scenario or match promises. There’s a few folksy one-liners and some chuckles. It’s a big part about what campaigns still don’t get.

Everybody has access to roughly the same tools now. The differentiator is whether voters feel like they know you. The politicians winning online are the ones creating a feedback loop: Content → attention → familiarity → trust → donations → more content. Rinse and repeat.

Meanwhile, too many campaigns are still operating like it’s 2018: “Here’s a stock image of the Capitol. AOC is bad. Donate $15 before midnight.” It’s no wonder so many GOPers have decided online fundraising ads aren’t working. Donors are tired of the same old message. They get it: the left is wrong, but why should they give to your candidate, specifically? If you can’t answer that, get out of the game.

And before anyone says “well not every candidate can be John Kennedy or Tim Burchett” - correct. They shouldn’t be. Forced authenticity is even worse than no authenticity. But every candidate can develop a distinct identity online instead of sounding like they were assembled in a focus group. The era of faceless fundraising is dying. We have to get our candidates out there. Develop an online presence and develop a brand.

—Can’t believe it’s real…oh wait

If it’s AI-generated, is it “real”? Let’s answer that another time. But this is crazy: Crypto-backed Fellowship PAC released an ad support Kentucky Senate candidate Andy Barr that features photos and b-roll of Andy Barr…and then ends with an obvious AI-generated photo of someone who is NOT Andy Barr. Ya’ll, come on, now. What are we even doing.

—All In

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is spending a ton of political capitol to try and get his friend Derek Dooley elected to the U.S. Senate. What happens to Kemp if Dooley loses the primary? I don’t even want to think about it, tbh. Anyway, this new ad from Hardworking Americans Inc isn’t bad. Some may even find it persuasive. If you’re looking for something to help differentiate candidates in a primary and you like the sitting governor…this could very well push you in one direction over another.

—I endorse this ad

This is a really fun ad from Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders that manages to weave in her family AND the affordability message. Nice.

—Sound off!

The pro-Lindsey Graham PAC Security is Strength spent a healthy $86K on Meta ads in the last week attacking Lindsey’s primary opponent, businessman Mark Lynch.

Lynch, who is challenging Graham from the right and seems to be running solely on “I’m not Lindsey Graham,” has a long, long history of saying and doing some whacky things. Team Graham is taking advantage. One ad is just a video of Lynch at what appears to be a campaign event an was probably filmed by a tracker. It includes Lynch talking about legalizing cocaine. Yes, cocaine. Another ad aligns Lynch with Trump foes MTG and Thomas Massie. Look, as someone who lives in South Carolina, I’m getting very little from Team Lynch. I’m getting a lot from Graham’s campaign and this PAC which tells me 2 things: Lynch’s political career likely isn’t going to extend beyond the June 9 primary. And also - love him or hate him, Lindsey Graham isn’t taking his re-election for granted. He’s spending money, he’s taking his challenger seriously, he’s organized, he’s on the ground, and he’s making his case. What else can an incumbent do? Like I said: Love him or hate him, the dude knows how to campaign. And so do his backers.

Welp. The people of Louisiana have spoken.
Trump alum and former Ashley Moody advisor Bea Valenti is running for Congress in Florida’s 14th District
A Club for Growth affiliate is running attack ads against Gentner Drummond - the current frontrunner in the Oklahoma GOP gubernatorial primary.
This is a crazy story: Erin Stewart - a leading Republican candidate in the gubernatorial primary in Connecticut - dropped out of the race this week because an investigation found she used a taxpayer-funded credit card for personal expenses while mayor of New Britain. I was sorta following this race…and I’m a little stunned by this? Like, do people really think they can do this sorta thing and get away with it these days?? (Don’t answer that).
Oregon poll: Could the Beaver State pick a Republican governor this year? Crazier things have happened!

Facebook

Google

🎧 Some interesting data here on Spotify streams versus YouTube views. TL:DR: Spotify audiences are more engaged

📱 A good look at what the iOS26 update actually meant for campaigners…from an industry expert

▶️ Google Ads will automatically start linking your YouTube channel this June. Yay.

📸 Meta released a Snapchat-style Instants App, allowing users to send real-time pics to friends that delete after they’re viewed. Cool.

🕵️ The NYT published a piece about the murky world of political influencers…and who pays.

Two compadres in the fundraising/digital space called out some bad actors this week!
Exhibit A: Eric Wilson, who - I’m paraphrasing - said WTF to an email from a senate campaign that asked people to commit to making phone calls…and then required a donation in order to make the commitment. I agree with Eric - WTF! Unfortunately, Eric chose to blur out the senate campaign that did this. He’s a much nicer person than I am. P.S. Is that a PSQ Impact form in the screenshot? Not that it matters.
Exhibit B: John Hall, who called out another campaign (nameless) for the weirdest, scammiest, most fraudulent text I’ve seen in a while. Ya’ll. What are we doing here. If you want to defend either, I’d LOVE to hear from you: itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com.
Another one bites the dust: Sen. Tim Scott is now on TikTok. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the point of this one, but maybe I’m just too old to get it.

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

“Independent” Austin Ahlman launched his bid for Congress this week against GOP incumbent Mike Flood and a lot of people were lauding his announcement video on X. I don’t know… I feel like a lot of “amazing” announcement videos these days are wannabe copies of actual ~really~ original announcement videos from cycles past. This one feels SO John Fetterman-esque to me, I don’t know how you can not see it. Does Austin have a moving personal story? Sure. Is this video better than most? Maybe. But when the candidate can’t (or just doesn’t) deliver some lines on-screen except for a few in the last 3 seconds…that’s always a huge tell in my book. Sorry not sorry?

From the other side of the tracks:

Something a little different this week… Apparently Americans are experiencing a “fun drought.” Yes, really - at least according to the totally non-biased Dave & Buster’s. Maybe there’s an opportunity though, to work in some more fun into our campaigning. Whether that’s fun, light-hearted ads and content or IRL events…just something to think about!

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

Talent + Reps = Dynamite

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 10 May 2026 23:01:47 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Happy Mother’s Day! Now, let’s get to some scrolling.

This week’s Doomscroll is sponsored by RumbleUp!

Before we get to this week’s One Question, I have a favor to ask.

I’ve teamed up with three other newsletter writers - Kyle Tharp, Katie Harbath, and Eric Wilson - to ask you lovely people to take a quick survey about the use of AI in campaigns. They’re asking their readers, and I’m asking ya’ll.

Why are we doing this? Good question. We’ve all spent the last couple of years watching the political world (that’s us) have two conversations about AI. One is the “OMG the world is ending” panic over deepfakes and misinformation. The other is the “OMG the world is changing” hype fest about how AI is revolutionizing everything from our copywriting to our ad making.

Both conversations are real, but neither is the full picture. And there’s one huge piece that’s missing: How - exactly - are campaigns using these tools RIGHT NOW?

We’re on a mission to find out.

Katie, Kyle, and Eric all pay just as close attention to this stuff as we do so they’re the perfect partners for this - and if you haven’t checked them out yet, you should (Yes, Kyle is a lefty but let’s show him some love anyway!) And for the next couple of weeks, we’re going to be asking all our readers to do this survey. It’s anonymous. It’ll take about 5 minutes, and we’ll report the results. Scout’s honor.

Please take this survey! If you’re working in campaigns, political consulting, digital strategy, data, or anywhere adjacent — this is for you! Please and thanks, friends!

take the survey

Ok, thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about if the 2026 doomsday scenarios for Republicans are changing how you’re campaigning this year. First the bad news: literally 100% of you agreed 2026 ain’t looking so good for the GOP. Yikes (although these votes came in before Virginia’s gerrymandered map was struck down!). A few of you had some good comments…even if no one quite answered the question about how their tactics are changing (boo). Here they are:

Pass the SAVE ACT and win or don’t and lose every election for the rest of time.
Every cycle, despite what headlines are in the media, voters ultimately vote with their wallet. Are the voters better off now than they were during the last election. This cycle is no different, and in theory, Republicans should be dominating the affordability headline…but we’re not. Despite that, Republicans are running on the talking points of keeping more money in your pocket because of the OBBB, which in theory is true, but voters simply aren’t feeling the impact. That said, until Trump ease the financial pressure voters are feeling, it’s not looking so hot for Republicans this year.
Changing the campaigning somewhat, but when you’re headed into the summer travel season with gas in most states getting close to or above $5/gal…. sorry man, nothing but a few district/ state specific things can dig us out from under that.

I have to say the cynicism is 100% my speed, which I think you all know by now so thank you very much for the glass-half-empty outlooks (100% serious). I honestly have nothing else to add!

Ok. This week’s One Question is not about inboxing or fundraising or AI. It’s about ::deep breath:: data. We honestly don’t talk enough about data, but it’s so crucial to everything we do. So this week - as we get more into the midterm election cycle - I want to know: What innovative things are you doing to find *your* people? How are you reaching people who aren’t on a list or voter roll? You can get as granular or broad as you like with this…just tell me what you’re doing data-wise! Inquiring minds want to know! (Ok it’s me. I’m the inquiring mind).

Help me out

The above quote comes from an MIT political scientist by the name of Adam Berinsky, who was quoted in the New York Times about the impact AI will have on political campaigning. Berinsky was one of the authors of a study about whether AI dialogue about a candidate moves voters more than traditional video ads (spoiler: it does). Cue the predictable freakout. The Democrat political consultants the NYT writer talked to (he interviewed 0 Republicans, for the record) basically said AI is going to destroy the planet (lmao). But the MIT guy who actually authored the study was much more measured - and is the dude I’m gonna agree with for now. Just a thought!

—A Tale of 2 Talents

Alright, let’s be real. This past week belonged to two men: Spencer Pratt and Marco Rubio.

Yes, really. Welcome to 2026.

One is releasing content left and right that would make any political veteran green with envy. I mean, even Jeb Bush(!) called his recent ad the best political ad of the year! Plus he had a knock-out debate performance. The other walked into the White House briefing room and delivered an answer so good it had both the MAGA die-hards and the establishment crowd salivating. Which, in today’s environment, is basically a political magic trick.

There’s a big lesson here for us.

Raw political talent + Years of reps = Messaging dynamite.

Spencer Pratt and Marco Rubio actually have a lot in common. It takes real instinct to become a reality TV villain people still remember 15 years later. It takes real instinct to climb the ranks and become a national political star.

But talent alone doesn’t get you there. Reps do.

I’ve seen a lot of consultants this week saying things like: “OMG Spencer Pratt needs zero media training.”

Wrong.

He already had his media training. It was called The Hills and the decade-plus of internet culture, interviews, podcasts, feuds, and content that came after it.

Same thing with Rubio.

People have spent years talking about his natural political talent, and they’re right. He absolutely has it. But do we all suddenly not remember that SOTU response? Small-hands-gate? Not to mention that 2016 New Hampshire debate. I still have mild PTSD from watching that takedown.

Talent matters. But practice matters more.

What people saw this week wasn’t effortless brilliance. It was years of public reps, failures, adjustments, and refinement all cashing in at once. And yes…maybe a keen ability to understand what is connecting with voters these days.

But at the end of the day, the best communicators aren’t just naturally gifted. They’re battle-tested. So get your candidates out there. Practice, as they say, makes perfect. Doesn’t matter how painful it is. I get the instinct to hide your candidate (cough cough Team Kamala cough cough), but what does that get you? (Don’t answer that).

The other lesson here? When our guys and gals kick butt we have to be ready to…wait for it…pounce. Pounce like no one’s watching. Rubio’s team did. And we all know Spencer’s been crushing it. I said it last week and I’ll say it again: I hope everyone’s taking notes.

—What is coming…exactly?

I have nothing against John James, for the record. He seems like a good candidate and a solid guy, and I’m ALL FOR random, real-life content. But even I have to admit…I’m not sure what this video accomplishes. Here’s my basic rule of thumb: Content still has to move the needle SOMEHOW. Filming yourself doing pull-ups and squats, pairing it with music, and posting it on X with copy that literally has nothing to do with being in the gym? Pass. Or…post it and prepare to be roasted! YOLO?

—Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop
A few weeks ago, this Politico piece about Burt Jackson’s spending in Georgia caused quite a stir. But the man ain’t slowing down! In the last 30 days, he’s spent nearly $2 million on Google ads alone. Two. Million. His closest competitor, Burt Jones, has spent around $817,000. So what is Team Jackson putting all their money behind? Some bio pieces, but also some hard-hitting ads attacking, well, Burt Jones.

This one calls him “as crooked as a dog’s hind leg,” and has been shown 6 million times:

This 6-second bumper ad has also been shown 5-6 million times. Talk about a niche topic that must have been uncovered in the polling:

I know money ain’t everything, but just based on spending alone? I’d be shocked if Jackson doesn’t walk away with this…

You Bring the Goal. We Bring the Team.

When the clock is ticking, you need more than just texting software. You need a team behind you ready to jump in.

“Great team that was quick to respond and extremely helpful. Walked us through everything with ease and clarity. Great platform overall.” - Scott W. (Capterra)

We are here for you.

New poll in Texas has Ken Paxton up 3 percentage points
John Rose released an ad in his run for governor of Tennessee that features his wife Chelsea. Watch it here.
Lindsey Graham released a new ad featuring his sister Darline. Watch it here.

Facebook

Google

💰 Is it possible…that we’re…underbuying Meta ads?? Gasp!

📈 Reddit released some interesting Q1 numbers. Ad revenue increased 74% YoY

📹 From Campaign Trend: 5 tools for clipping video (#blessyouericwilson)

So this is new…someone used the gossip button to ask ME a question!

What’s your thought on GOP wannabe star child Scott Presler teaching people how to request refunds for their WinRed donations? I know for a fact everyone has a thought one way or the other about Scott in general, but his latest antics of directly hurting GOP fundraising numbers is something new, almost like a move I’d expect the Democrats to pull on Republicans to sabotage, except it’s coming from inside the house.

What are my thoughts? Well it ain’t great, that’s for sure. But tbh - I actually didn’t have a thought about Scott Presler one way or the other before you asked this question. He was only kinda on my radar? But I guess now my gripe is the same gripe I have with every other conservative influencer. When you try to “help” by actually hurting Republicans…I do get a little suspicious. But… AT THE SAME TIME, this is what happens when you don’t do things like pass the Save Act. People give money to conservative politicians and expect to get something back in return: a conservative agenda. When we take people’s money and then don’t deliver, it contributes to the poor fundraising environment we’re already seeing. I want good fundraising reports too - truly - but you know what I want even more than that? Real, conservative, pro-America policy coming out of Washington. So while I maybe don’t love the tactic here, I also kinda get it? Even if it sucks. Sorry, guys. Do your job or don’t get paid!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

Ugh. I love and hate this all at the same time.

From the other side of the tracks:

This is one of the weirdest ads I’ve ever seen. I mean, Skittles’ marketing has always been weird, but I don’t know…

What’s the lesson here? Let your freak flag fly? If you’ve got one?

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

They Not Like US

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 03 May 2026 23:01:24 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right and where the red button is obviously the correct answer. Let’s get to some scrolling!

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about inboxing. 83% of you said it’s a problem, but only a small piece of the puzzle. The rest of you said it’s THE problem for our fundraising woes. So the people have spoken! And let me just say…you all had a LOT of thoughts. Here are some of them - and yes I had to edit some for length:

You complain about our terrible practices enough across all other kpis in fundraising, so why would inboxing be any different? We don’t do a great job with our strategies when it comes to making it in the inbox with everything from aggressive tactics to aggressive rev shares. There are quite a few vendors who don’t suffer from inboxing as an issue for this reason. Yes there’s bias but that’s the lazy excuse we’ve been giving for almost a decade now. People just have to admit that long term email strategies really don’t exist in this industry
Saying that inboxing or big tech is censoring Republicans is an easy answer to a complex question. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue. First, monitoring inboxing is a full-time job. We have someone on staff whose entire job is to help with inboxing, removing ISP blocks, and make sending recommendations. Additionally, hitting the spam filter isn’t always the worst thing - hear me out. If you are getting there, it means other messages are actually hitting inboxes, so there are more complaints. More complaints to ISPs means more messages marked as spam. Hence, we need someone full-time to check deliverability. …Second, there’s been a ton of bad actors on our side. They’ve been sending content that is really spammy. Fake matches, 11000% matches, social security checks emails, are really dangerous to inboxing. Not to mention how we’re treating our donors, which think is a bigger part of the issue. Pre-checking donation pages is a bigger issue for our results, because many donors don’t trust WinRed because they think they are being scammed (they are, but not by WinRed). We need better practices to treat donors better.
The incessant hand-wringing over inboxing has been going on for years, meanwhile no one genuinely makes an effort to do something about it except the folks over at the NRSC (shoutout Cooper!) At the end of the day, we DO experience unfair inbox placement, and we ALSO abuse our lists and don’t engage in accepted sender practices. My burner email’s inbox has messages from organizations who I haven’t opened an email from in YEARS. Blaming it all on our ISP overlords is an easy way to not take any responsibility.
Two thoughts; 1) Yes, it’s been proven time and time again that inboxing is a problem for Republicans. But is it THE ONLY problem? No. Republicans have this tendency to identify something as the big bad wolf and die on the hill believing that the one thing identified is the reason for all the struggles. Every time there’s a problem with fundraising, operatives immediately fall into this pit of blaming inboxing rather than reflecting, learning, and seeing things from a 30,000 ft view. …There could be a whole TED Talk about why fundraising numbers struggle for Republicans, but when it comes down to brass tax, the biggest problem we face as a party is that people either don’t feel connected to the party apparatus or don’t want to give money to a system they don’t trust. Look at the Democrats for example. As wild and crazy as they might be, they’ve spent years making every person feel like they’re a part of something special, that they’re all connected and fighting with a purpose. 2) The past few weeks some folks here have been on a high horse about inboxing and demanding an answer to prove them wrong about inboxing only being part of the problem rather than being the only problem. Except no matter what information or opinions they’re given, the following week all we hear is “WeLl AcTuAlLy!” Well actually, as someone who likes being a quiet operative who gets the job done and goes home at the end of the day, it’s EXHAUSTING to listen to the same argument over and over because it’s like we’re debating a brick wall. Democrats might be crazy, but have you looked at the definintion of insanity? P.S. - Thank you for listening to MY TED Talk.
Big Tech censorship of Republican emails (with or without WinRed links) is only part of the anti-GOP/conservative Big Tech dystopia. Everyone knows that virtually all of the Big Tech universe is liberal -- Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, PayPal, Netflix, Yahoo, etc. They have embedded bias into their algorithms. The chief solution is to investigate, prosecute civilly, and break them up.
who cares if you get in the inbox when your messaging is telling Grandma the world is going to end if she doesn’t click this link
I HATE people complaining about inboxing. Cry me a river. 9 times out of 10 the person complaining that its all bias is not following best practices. The ISP’s have added more guidelines each year and yeah, they are enforcing them religiously. Play ball or STFU. The agencies that have invested in smart email leaders and teams are seeing improved fundraising. The ones that keep treating it like they have it all figured out have seen bad month after month because they think it’s still 2020. Your scammy AI written emails are not going to inbox when you are not setting up your email infrastructure properly, making adjustments and coming up with ways to boost performance organically. We always say invest in digital. Well... INVEST IN TALENTED EMAIL LEADERS!
The political/economic environment is certainly a factor but blaming ‘inboxing’ is lazy. Our side does a terrible job with email. I challenge anyone that just wants to blame ‘big tech’ to actually sign up for Democrat candidate/Committee emails and you will immediately see the difference. They almost always tell a story and have solid reasons to donate while our side almost exclusively is using techniques or gimmicks like the FAKE DOGE/Tax Rebate/Tariff Rebate checks or ‘your name is missing’ over and over and over again. There are candidates and firms on our side doing great work with email but it is a definite minority.
RE this: The North Carolina senate race is huge this year. When Roy Cooper got in it seemed like every single Democrat entity on planet earth was doing sends for Roy Cooper. Same for James Talarico. That dude did not walk out of the state senate and piece together a $30 million fundraising machine out of nowhere. We just don’t have that kind of willingness (or infrastructure?) to make that happen on our side. I feel like Cooper Reves and NRSC deserve some credit here. He has pushed this exact thing extremely aggressively for candidate announcements, including for NC.

Ok first off: To whoever said I “complain” - I wouldn’t so much call it “complaining” as much as providing “helpful critiques.” Constructive criticism. Slight suggestions. Modest proposals. Second: Let’s all give a round of applause to Cooper Reeves for getting TWO shout-outs in one newsletter! Way to go, Coop. Way to be out there, doing the Lord’s work for the rest of us.

But like I said - you guys had a lot of thoughts. And if I had to edit some of your comments down - sorry. I like reading the rants (best part of my week!) but Substack does have a word count limit if I want this entire newsletter to land in your inbox without being cut off. I won’t spend time responding to each one or opining more about inboxing (for now). It’s like I’ve said over and over again: Whenever I bring this issue up with folks I get pretty mixed responses - as you can see! So…yeah. I didn’t just make that up. Some of you are all in on the big tech bias. That’s great for you. And then some of you are more my speed: Sure it’s a problem but we’ve also got a million other things WE CAN ACTUALLY CONTROL that would make our programs a lot better so let’s focus on those!

Ok, this week’s One Question is *not* about fundraising (thank the Lord, yes I know), but it might still be a little depressing. According to ::checks notes:: literally everyone, the political landscape is looking pretty terrible for the GOP this year. Trump’s approval numbers are under water. We’re going to lose the House. We may even lose the Senate. Everything is looking bleak. Etc Etc Etc. So this week I want to know: Do you believe the doomsday scenario and if so, how is that changing how you’re campaigning this cycle (if at all)?

Don’t hold back!

Share with the class

The above comes from a really smart piece this week in The Relational Republican titled “Group Chats Are The New Field Offices.” This is one of those things that, like, we’d ALL be thinking about if time/staffing weren’t an issue. We know relational organizing works - the question is always how to best use it as a tactic in a way that’s efficient and effective when we’re short on time, short on resources, and the list of campaign to-dos is getting longer by the day. Group chats are a thing. We all have them. We all use them. How do campaigns infiltrate them? Is this the time to sing “All Hail the Mighty Volunteer”? Is it time to organize WhatsApp groups and recruit volunteers into them? Create broadcast channels on Instagram? Post on NextDoor (not necessarily a group chat but similar idea). These are all things smart campaigns should be looking into - just a thought! Anyway - take two minutes and read the post. Get the wheels turning.

—The Ad

The internet went wild this week over that Spencer Pratt ad…and for good reason. Normally the contrarian in me would want to find something wrong with this. Like…anything. And yet this time I’m following the crowd. Herd mentality all the way! I have to! This is outstanding. Who would have thunk Mr. Spencer Pratt could churn out something like this? I mean, I guess I should have known. I should have. I watched enough of The Hills to know this man knows how to tell A STORY. The messaging is spot-on: SO MANY far-left Democrat politicians will never ever have to suffer the consequences of their policies. They are elite and they are protected from the disasters they create. Don’t care if it’s Karen Bass or Zohran Mamdani. They’re all the same and this ad gets that across brilliantly. Kudos to whoever made it. Heard Team Pratt raised six figures off it online in just one day. Nice. Digital peeps: Take notes.

—Will the real Graham Platner please stand up?
Lots of news out of Maine this week, not the least of which being this excellent ad from the NRSC highlighting all the details about Graham Platner’s bio that he always conveniently leaves out of his story. Love this use of AI and love this ad.

—Southern Charm?
The South Carolina primaries are on June 9, and let’s just say…things are heating up down here - especially in the gubernatorial race. The pro-Alan Wilson SC Conservative Action Fund is out with an attack site called QueenDEI.com hitting current Lt. Governor Pamela Evette for promoting DEI and getting rich off it. Woof. A pro-Evette PAC, meanwhile, is hitting Wilson (the state’s current AG and son of Rep. Joe Wilson) with some kind of corrupt cronyism charge that doesn’t quite stick if you ask me because even after watching the ad I’m still not sure what the hit is? And then there’s Nancy Mace who’s just out there doing her thing and relative newcomer Rom Reddy who got the NYT treatment this week and came out hard against data centers. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham is facing a challenge from the right in the form of businessman Mark Lynch. I think it’s safe to say Graham will pull through although I fully expect the Democratic machine to put resources into his general election opponent, Annie Andrews, which should be…fun to watch. Anyway, Team Graham is up with their own microsite against Lynch - StopMarkLynch.com - which hits him for wanting to legalize “medical cocaine.” Ok…Also fwiw I’ve been getting that ad on Instagram reels constantly for the last few weeks. Just saying! Anyway…micro-sites, mailers, texts, FB ads, billboards…we’ve got it all down here!

-Wacky Website

Philip Harding, who’s running for Congress in Virginia’s new 7th congressional district, might have one of the most unusual website design features I’ve seen in a while…Click here and check out his cursor and you’ll see what I mean. I’m kind of torn on this? On one hand, I hate just about everything about this website design-wise. On the other hand, I’m so tired of seeing the same old template-y campaign sites these days that I don’t care what the weird feature is - I’m just glad there’s someone out there doing something different. I’m going to hand Mr. Harding an A for effort, choose to embrace the YOLO nature of this, and invite you all to join me! P.S. thanks to the loyal reader for flagging.

Sam Mead is running for Senate in Wyoming
Michigan gubernatorial race taking an interesting turn: Perry Johnson is apparently suing John james for using the world “governor”
News anchor Ryan Elijah announced a primary challenge to Rep. Cory Mills in FL-7
Florida Rep. Daniel Webster is retiring
After 30 days on the campaign trail, Mark Sanford has dropped his bid for Congress in SC-1.
Speaking of SC-1, one of Sanford’s now former primary opponent is getting some ad help from Winning for Women Action Fund. She also just released her own ad, titled “Jenny from the Block.” Cute.
WSJ reports that Trump is leaning toward endorsing Andy Barr in the KY Senate race…which would be a huge disappointment for the MAGA base I gather?
Kentucky…uh…I guess this is one way to put an end to a nasty primary battle?

Facebook

Google

💻 Good read from Michael Beech’s State of the Screens about the “world’s greatest ad machine.” Yes, it’s Meta (obviously). Crazy stat: Reels is making more money than all of Youtube!?

📈 Speaking of ads, spend was up overall in Q1

📊 Interesting survey from Echelon Insights on political influencers. Top 2: Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom

Congrats to Nick Elliott for starting his new role at Campaign HQ!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

I found this interesting:

Honestly not a bad gig if you’re “professional social media scroller” who is “fired up to elect Democrats” for $65,000 a year.

From the other side of the tracks:

Meta just released a new report titled “Generation Zeitgeist 2026” that makes a bold claim: The generation gap has closed. The era of age as the primary targeting shortcut is over.

Here’s more:

For an industry that has spent the better part of a decade obsessing over generational differences, building separate strategies for separate cohorts, and treating Boomers as digital tourists - whilst positioning Gen Z as entirely unique and requiring specialist translation - this should be a wake-up call.
The mental models we’ve built are increasingly disconnected from reality.
…
We found a profound convergence in attitudes and behaviors across all age groups, one that demands a fundamental rethink of how brands approach audience strategy.
Indeed, the largest behavioral gaps we found aren’t between generations at all. They’re between lifestages.

It’s definitely something to think about. What’s the takeaway for us? There could be a lot, so I recommend reading the full report. But for sure one could be that we stop targeting by age alone (low-hanging fruit) and focus our messaging more on life events: having kids, buying a home, etc etc. One other chart that stood out (see above): people want tips and hacks. Huge opportunity there for candidates when thinking about content, if you ask me…

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!

You've been warned

Amanda Elliott — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 23:01:20 GMT

Hello and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right! Lots of venting this week, folks, so buckle up and let’s get to some scrolling.

Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about why Republican candidates are getting crushed on the fundraising front! Since it was an open-ended question I don’t have a nice, quick summary to give you. I did, however, get a lot of thoughtful comments. Here are some of them:

Trump is on the Ballot for them, not for us. Hate drives donations.
Reliable national donors are seemingly reluctant to give to candidates right now. Obviously there are exceptions. But in mass - that seems to be the case. Trump is certainly a factor here. I have spoken with countless donors over the past month who are currently losing money due to the Trump Tariffs. That being said, it isn’t the only factor here. Lack of candidate quality plays a factor. For instance: Michael Whatley isn’t exactly a stellar candidate who has great charisma; although, his fundraising is extremely lackluster given his previous job... All that to say. We need to do a better job of messaging to our donors. Not flooding their phones and emails with texts/emails. And focusing on relationships.
What could the reason be other than bias in inboxing? How many cycles do we have to get crushed in low donor fundraising before some of you wake up?
I feel like Dems consistently outraise Republicans, however the committees and President Trump’s operation raising their substantial amounts of cash make me feel better about these individual candidates getting outraised. It feels like the Dems play is to get money directly to the candidates whereas Republicans are focused on the larger groups making spending decisions. Will be interesting to see which pays off.
Our friends on the Left understand the value of a good sequence. Telling a story and maybe not playing the role of Chicken Little every 10 minutes.
History shows that when a leader of a party/government/movement goes rogue, broadly-defined, that hurts the morale of the base of the movement or party. Trump’s rhetoric -- and many of his actions -- are a combination of nonsensical, diabolical, harmful, and counter-productive. Moreover, instead of addressing Americans’ problems, he is making them worse with his Neocon-interventionist foreign policy, which is the exact opposite of his campaign rhetoric. The GOP small-donor base sees the disconnect. …. Money in politics is like munitions in warfare -- it only gets you so far. There are many more criteria and intangibles required for victory. Morale and voter enthusiasm are grossly-underrated with regard to the most important bottom-line metric -- voter turnout.
You work in this space. You tell us what the issue is.

Ok so some of you pointed out we have a messaging problem, which is only being made harder by the Trump Administration doing things that are pissing off the base. Some of you mentioned candidate quality. At least one of you said inboxing (!!) Whoever left the comment about candidate vs. committee fundraising raised an interesting question. Maybe the left and right ecosystems just operate differently in ways that play out via online fundraising programs. Whether one way is better than the other is…TBD? That last comment, though? I hear you. If the people want to know what Amanda Elliott thinks, she’s going to tell you.

I 100% do not have all the answers, but I do have thoughts and I think a lot of it is structural. What do we do when we launch a new fundraising program? We take whatever email list the candidate has already scraped together. We warm it up and start hitting it daily. We take their cell phone numbers and start sending P2P. Messages get more frequent and the asks more urgent. We beat that house file into the ground until it becomes so unreliable we move the bulk of our efforts to revshares. Doesn’t matter if the split is 95-5 as long as that “total money raised” column keeps up, right? And since we’re now all sending to the same lists and competing for the same donors, the race to stand out gets harder and harder. The matches go up. The promises get more extreme. We do things like tell grandmas in Iowa that their DOGE check is on the way if only they donate $20 to some candidate in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the house file isn’t growing. We’re not finding new donors. We’re not telling compelling stories or treating donors with respect, we’re just trying to get to Election Day.

So what’s happening here? We’re running the same programs over and over and think if we just scare people enough at the exact right moment they’ll chip in $10. And then when they’re on the WinRed page we can trick them into an upsell or making it a recurring donation. Or maybe if we just show up in their inbox often enough they’ll get exasperated, cave, and throw $5 our way. Only now they’re exasperated- AND ON THE DONOR LIST - so really what they thought would help their problem is actually about to make it a whole lot worse. It’s the same old playbook.

Look, I don’t know what Democrats do over on their side of the aisle - except for what I can see publicly. But it seems to me like they work much better as a group to train their fundraising machine on the races and candidates who either A) need it the most or B) rile up their base the most. The North Carolina senate race is huge this year. When Roy Cooper got in it seemed like every single Democrat entity on planet earth was doing sends for Roy Cooper. Same for James Talarico. That dude did not walk out of the state senate and piece together a $30 million fundraising machine out of nowhere. We just don’t have that kind of willingness (or infrastructure?) to make that happen on our side.

And sure, maybe in 2026 we’ll be fine because the committees, super PACs, or the Trump machine will save our candidates’ butts. But what we do today has implications far beyond just this cycle and I think not realizing that is a little shortsighted. We have good candidates. We have good stories. We even have the tech, though while we’re on the subject of tech maybe it’s time to take a little detour (indulge me): WinRed has a PR problem - and that’s coming from someone who loves WinRed. I think they’ve done great things overall for the party and there’s not a better platform out there. But the truth is simple: Lots of uninformed donors hate it. They blame it for the scammy nature of our programs and honestly WinRed should probably be mad AT ALL OF US for not taking better care of our fundraising platform. Instead, they’ve become the bogeyman. Are we losing a ton of revenue because people simply refuse to click on WinRed links anymore? Maybe not a ton, but I’m starting to believe it’s not NOT having an impact.

Anyway, I told you I had thoughts. You were warned! But let’s get to this week’s One Question and settle the inboxing debate once and for all. As one commenter put it:

What could the reason be other than bias in inboxing? How many cycles do we have to get crushed in low donor fundraising before some of you wake up?

So what say all of you? Is the hand-wringing pointless because the only way to solve this is to get Big Tech to stop censoring Republican emails with WinRed links? How big a problem is this?

CHIME IN HERE

The above quote comes from a Substack essay from THE Chris Wilson. It’s a startling stat - and one he uses to respond to that David Plouffe NYT op-ed I talked about a couple weeks ago. To refresh: Plouffe argued that campaigns in 2026 should be full-time production studios. Wilson essentially says yes…but that’s only half the picture and focusing on output alone won’t cut it either. If only about 2% of American adults decide elections, what matters more is reaching them at the exact right time with a message that moves. So: identifying those who are truly persuadable and distributing the content that will persuade them. It ain’t easy, folks, but necessary and something to keep in mind. Just a thought!

—Fighting over fair maps

Welp, it was a big week in the Commonwealth of Virginia - and many of you, I presume. Thanks to some truly vile Democrat legislators, Virginia’s map is getting redrawn to basically eliminate all but one Republican congressional seat. Womp, womp. I haven’t really written about this until now because - full disclosure - I did some of the digital for Virginians for Fair Maps. And fwiw I don’t love writing about stuff I’m working on as I’m working on it. Just feels weird. But now that the voters have spoken I feel the need to say a few things - not about the digital component per se which was run absolutely flawlessly (duh) - but about all the backseat driving from people who weren’t even in the room to begin with.

Not to name names, but there’s been a lot of people out there crowing about how IF ONLY Virginia Republicans had funded their GOTV program, the No side would have won. IF ONLY they hadn’t bought so much TV (or they didn’t buy enough TV - which is it?), the No side would have won. IF ONLY the RNC and CLF had spent more, the No side would have won. And on and on… Well guess what, guys? This referendum was the first federal special election since 2024 that the GOP effort overperformed President Trump’s 2024 margin. In other words: Virginia Republicans still know how to play. And if they chose not to give your organization millions of dollars to door-knock or pay you to write a few op-eds and post on X (you know who you are!) then tough beans. These pay-to-post guys can yell all they want after Election Day, but their extortion scheme didn’t pass the sniff test, sorry.

Considering what we were up against: around $90 million in outside money, a ridiculously-worded ballot question, and a very (let’s just be real) national anti-Trump sentiment, it was always going to be a tough hill to climb. And like I said - in the broader context of all the specials we’ve seen lately, we did a pretty ok job even if things didn’t go our way on Election Day (darn those mail-in ballots, amirite?). It’s just funny to me how everyone knows what would have saved the day after the fact. And it alway just happens to be the *solution* that would have made them or their organization millions of dollars. Just saying. This is always a game of limited information. If you were a national group considering your allocation of resources in 2026 and thinking about Virginia after Winsome Sears’ performance in 2025, what would you do? Send millions to the state that elected Jay Jones? The people pointing fingers at CLF, RNC, etc aren’t the ones who actually ran the No campaign and tbh, that should tell you everything you need to know. Ok, biased vent sesh over.

—Speaking of paying to post…
I feel like this is something I’m for SURE going to talk about a lot more later, but the Lexington Herald-Leader published a fascinating piece about a week ago about influencers posting positive things about Nate Morris. The story asks a simple question: Are they getting paid to post good things about Morris on X? Here’s just a small snippet:

Over the last 10 months — since Morris launched his campaign in June 2025 — the trio of accounts has posted near-simultaneously timed messages of praise about him 20 times. In the first three months of 2026, at least one of the three accounts reposted 56% of Morris’ posts. About 30% of the time, all three accounts reposted Morris, sharing his posts to their collective 4.8 million followers. In a statement, Morris’ campaign denied any relationship with the accounts.

Here’s the thing: Morris’ campaign could legit deny any relationship with the influencers if all the posting was coordinated through a third party…like an agency by the name of, oh I don’t know…X Strategies. When the Herald-Leader reached out to X to ask about posting on behalf of Morris, here’s what founder Alex Bruesewitz said:

“This is fake news that an anti-Trump consultant working for one of Nate’s opponents likely fed to you,” Bruesewitz wrote to the Herald-Leader. “But I am used to anti-Trump losers and fake news journalists spreading lies about me, I suppose it comes with the territory. I am proud to be on Team Morris because Nate is a good man who built an incredible business and loves our country.”

I mean….I have thoughts. First and foremost being: if this is your business model why are you so defensive, Alex? It’s not hard to figure out if a campaign is paying X Strategies (The Morris campaign paid it $90,000 in 2025). It’s not hard to figure out that coordinating paid messaging campaigns with influencers is what X Strategies does (unless I’m totally wrong in which case please correct me?!?).

I’m not even going to argue that this is bad. It’s actually probably not bad. It’s actually probably a good strategic move if you’re running in a competitive primary in a red state. When you know it’s hard to cut through the noise and you have the resources to fund this kind of operation…why not try it? At the same time, if you’re a creator/influencer, you have to know people will probably catch on at some point and realize you’re not just posting out of the goodness of your heart…And when you’re called out I would think you’d want to have a better answer than “fake news.” But hey, that’s just me!

—Speaker Johnson’s War Room

Speaker Johnson’s team rolled out a war room X account this week. Good for them. But I can’t not get nit-picky for a second. With all the space I devoted a couple weeks ago to the differences between comms and digital…ONLY comms staffers would feel the need to put “run by the communications team” in the bio. Like, ok guys. Now we all know everything posted to this account is being filtered through 100 comms staffers. 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Facebook

Google

💳 AdWeek got its hands on a leaked pitch deck from StackAdapt that supposedly pitched ChatGPT ad CPMs as low as $15…Of course the story is paywalled, but there’s a Reddit thread for everything!

🖱️ And apparently OpenAI is now offering CPC campaigns on ChatGPT…

💻 Enjoyed this essay/interview about Raisin Bran’s strategy of replying to comments - especially on Threads.

👩‍💻 Also enjoyed this post from Campaign Trend about why we should stop posting links. I’ll be honest: I’ve been slow to make this change, but not anymore! Key point: The better way to think about social media is as a discovery channel. It’s where potential voters and supporters find you for the first time. It’s not where you convert them.

Congrats to Sydney Fowler for joining John Hall Strategies!

S/o to Jordan Lieberman for his post taking us through a political journey of America’s restaurants. I 100% forgot Thunder Grill ever existed.

And…..a couple new comments through the gossip button!

Commenting on the staffer video posted to an official account. Look at what happened in Kentucky with Andy Barr’s Campaign Manager. Promoting staff members opens them up to attacks. Staff is just that, they should not be the center of attention. They are doing a job and didn’t sign up to have their entire life scrutinized by the news media. Maybe we’re moving into a different world, but seems like a dangerous door to open.
Haha. I submitted my answer the first question before reading the section on inboxing. You get mixed answers because we been trained to believe that inboxing at significantly less than 100% is not only acceptable but a good thing. We’re thrilled when clients inbox at 30%. Demand better.

To the first comment: That’s a fair point and also why I say proceed with caution and at your own risk! If you’re a senior level staffer and want to assume the risk of generating content for a campaign account - go for it. Could be great. If you don’t want to? Don’t. Should never be a job requirement!

To that second comment: hmmm…point taken! We’ll see what the masses say this week!

Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com

From the other side of the aisle:

Pod Save America bro Dan Pfeiffer is launching something called Message Box Pro - “a political consulting subscription that gives campaigns, candidates, and organizers access to weekly strategy memos, office hours with me, message testing and polling insights, and a community of operatives and organizers from across the country. All at a fraction of the cost of traditional consulting.”

Interesting concept. Read his post about why here.

From the other side of the tracks:

Ok, as if we didn’t need another reason to be wary of partnering with influencers… Was anyone else following (I say “following” loosely) the drama around influencers being uninvited to Coachella and then posting about it non-stop? Supposedly brands invited smaller creators to go as part of some partnership deals…and then uninvited them at the last minute. Sondra Clark has a great post about why this means agencies HAVE to treat influencers of all sizes with respect - they don’t operate by the same rules as journalists after all! But now that we’ve moved past the outrage portion, many are asking a different question: Were these influencers even invited to begin with? Or is this all a marketing scheme to up the drama and drive engagement? They’re not naming names or saying which brands did the uninviting. Sure, maybe that’s to protect future deals but also: when your main currency is trust and authenticity, disclosure is important. If you’re going to publicly shame bad actors…name the bad actors! If there’s a takeaway here for the political world it’s this: when dealing with influencers…tread lightly.

Before you go…

Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Follow me on X. Follow Doomscroll on X.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!