In the heart of Pennsylvania, 19-year-old Hayden Cook feels the pressure of political ads more than most. Despite using blockers on YouTube and opting out of cable TV, he’s bombarded daily with messages from candidates as the presidential election heats up. “It’s absolutely non-stop,” Cook says, noting that even a short drive to work means hearing multiple ads on the radio.
With over $10 billion projected to be spent on political advertising this election cycle—an increase of 20-25% from 2020—voters in crucial swing states like Pennsylvania are at the center of a frenzy. Almost $1 billion is expected to flow into the Keystone State alone, with about $450 million dedicated to the face-off between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, according to research firm AdImpact.
The sheer volume of ads can feel overwhelming, especially when many voters, like Cook, have already made their choices. “It’s everywhere,” he adds, bemused by the mailers his family receives from conservative groups despite being registered Democrats.
In contrast to election campaigns in the UK, which are limited to 25 working days and cap spending, the U.S. political landscape allows for an almost unrestrained advertising blitz. Polls suggest that only about 3% of voters remain undecided, which raises questions about the effectiveness of such massive ad campaigns.
While Harris has out-fundraised Trump significantly—entering September with $235 million compared to Trump’s $135 million—the question remains: will these dollars translate into votes? Political experts believe advertising often influences outcomes only at the margins. Erika Fowler, a government professor at Wesleyan University, explains, “If the margin is in play, it matters a lot to the overall outcome.”
Harris has indeed been outspending Trump on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, sometimes at a staggering 16-to-1 ratio. This strategy may help her close the gap in public perception, particularly with younger voters, as she targets more than 300 ads specifically aimed at Pennsylvanians, compared to just 22 from Trump.
But with tight polling and the potential for surprises on election day, many experts caution against relying solely on advertising. “Ads don’t persuade; they polarize,” says Cameron Shelton, a political economy professor at Claremont McKenna College. He notes that while ads can motivate supporters, they can also provoke backlash, energizing the opposition.
As political tensions rise, even casual gatherings can become fraught with tension. Tim Anzelone, 36, recently hosted a watch party for the Steelers but muted the TV during commercials to avoid conflicts sparked by political ads. “I always think it’s a huge waste of money,” he admits. “But it must be working for someone.”
Ultimately, the political ad landscape may evolve to become even more targeted, risking greater polarization in the electorate. “I’m sad to project that we’re going to get even more siloed and polarized,” Shelton warns. “You’ll see one set of ads that confirms your beliefs, while others will reinforce opposing views.”
As Election Day approaches, the barrage of ads raises important questions: How will they influence the final outcome? And as voters like Cook and Anzelone express fatigue with the constant messaging, will the impact be as significant as the investment suggests?
