“President Trump’s re-election campaign has begun spending heavily on Facebook ads that also promote the social media pages of his campaign manager, Brad Parscale, running more than $325,000 in such ads, mostly in recent weeks,” the New York Times reports.

“Digital strategists said it was highly unusual to use a campaign staff member’s page to run ads.”

Politico: “In the past few months, the Lincoln Project — a PAC with not much funding, as far as PACs go — has successfully established itself as a squatter in Trump’s mental space, thanks to several factors: members each boasting hundreds of thousands of social media followers, rapidly cut ads that respond to current events and a single-minded focus on buying airtime wherever Trump is most likely to be binging cable news that day, whether it’s the D.C. market or his golf courses across the country. And every time Trump freaks out — or every time the media covers his freakout — the Lincoln Project scores an incalculable amount of earned media, and millions of views online to boot.”

“But though the PAC has successfully caught Trump’s attention… Trump’s critics worry that the ads, as well cut and as troll-effective as they are, may not actually work to ‘prosecute the case’ against his re-election, as the group vowed to do back in December.”

The Lincoln Project is out with a new ad in the aftermath of President Trump’s underwhelming Tulsa rally.

Says a female narrator: “Hey Donald… your rally in Tulsa was a flop. You’ve probably heard this before, but it was smaller than we expected — it sure wasn’t as big as you promised.”

The voice goes on to say Trump “can’t keep your polls up.”

“Facebook  said it had take action against ads run by President Trump’s re-election campaign for breaching its policies on hate,” CNN reports.

“The ads, which attacked what the Trump campaign described as ‘Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups,’ featured an upside-down triangle.”

The Anti-Defamation League said the triangle “is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps.”

New York Times: “Joe Biden’s campaign has moved to capitalize on the enormous energy reflected in the nationwide protests against racism and police brutality with the biggest online spending of his candidacy, pouring nearly $5 million into Facebook ads alone in recent days.”

“Mr. Biden spent about the same amount on Facebook over just a few days last week as he had in the first 10 months of his candidacy. On Thursday alone, he spent $1.6 million on the platform, more than triple President Trump’s single-day record, according to company data. The staggering sums are a sure sign, according to digital strategists, that people are responding to Mr. Biden’s ads — and donating, too.”

Jonathan Bernstein: “The truth is that no November campaign was ever won by advertising in May. Political scientist John Sides put it this way: ‘For journalists writing about the new Trump `Death Star’ ad blitz, it’s imperative to discuss the research showing how quickly the effects of presidential general election advertising wear off. The impact of advertising in May on what happens in November is likely zero.'”

“So why do it? Mostly because they can. Presidential campaigns these days raise far more money than they can spend effectively. Even if the chances of influencing the outcome are only ‘likely’ zero, it may still be rational to spend the money, because in a very close race any little bit is helpful. (Of course, this election may not turn out to be close, but no one can say at this point.)”

“That’s not all. Both bureaucratic momentum and, in some cases, profit motives can lead to more advertising.”

“We expected this ad to hit. We did not expect him to behave in the completely maniacally way he behaved all day today, but here we are.” 

— GOP strategist Rick Wilson, quoted by the HuffPost, on the Lincoln Project’s “Mourning in America” ad.

The Lincoln Project is out with a brutal new ad that plays off of Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 “Morning In America” ad — but not in a good way.

New York Times: “The campaign’s digital strategy has the advantages of far more time, money and data than it did the previous cycle. But its chief asset remains the same as in 2016: a compulsively performative, pugilistic and norm-shredding candidate who demonstrably will stop at nothing to win — so prolific a generator of outrageous ad content that one 2016 R.N.C. operative likens working for him to ‘fishing with dynamite.'”

“The dynamite, as in 2016, takes the form of Facebook ads with thousands of barely detectable variants, each targeting voting groups in specific locales with specific issue interests and demographic profiles. Turning passive viewers of these ads into small donors is among Parscale’s key objectives, and not only for the money: Every online donor provides personal data for the campaign to use and the investment in Trump makes it almost certain that someone will show up to the polls and vote for him.”

“The Facebook ads themselves have always been cheap, but as The Atlantic recently reported, they now can cost 40 percent less because of coronavirus-induced market tremors.”

Washington Post: “As Democrats escalate their general-election campaign against the president, they have targeted his failure to act urgently to deflect the damage the coronavirus is wreaking over lives and the economy, as he brushed aside intelligence briefings and warnings from health officials while holding fundraisers and gathering thousands of his followers at rallies.”

“Their greatest ammunition? Trump’s own comments, aired daily in the marathon coronavirus briefings where he commands center stage.”

“A leading Democratic super PAC is reserving $17 million worth of digital ads in key battleground states to start after the Democratic National Convention in July and run through Election Day in November,” McClatchy reports.

“The online ad blitz from Priorities USA is slated for Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — a quintet of swing states that strategists in both parties expect to be at the center of the general election.”

Not surprisingly, those are the five Toss Up states on the consensus electoral map.

“Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign is hiring hundreds of workers in California to post regularly on their personal social-media accounts in support of the candidate and send text messages to their friends about him,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The effort, which could cost millions of dollars, is launching ahead of California’s March 3 primary and could later be deployed nationwide… It is one of the most unorthodox yet by the heavy-spending billionaire and blurs the lines between traditional campaign organizing and the distribution of sponsored content.”

Justin Peters watched 185 campaign ads from Michael Bloomberg.

“Here’s what I learned: For one thing, that watching nearly 200 campaign ads in a short period is sort of like being brainwashed, which I suppose is the goal of all advertising. At this point, I wouldn’t say I’m aboard the Bloomberg train, but I think I would feel a little less uncomfortable buying a ticket. Many of the ads are very good. Many more of them are not. The quality of any individual ad, though, is ultimately less important than the breadth of the entire corpus. It’s not that Bloomberg doesn’t have some good ideas—he does—or that he would not be a more competent executive than our current president. The point is that the campaign’s goal is to very quickly achieve messaging saturation in lieu of the monthslong ground game Bloomberg didn’t bother to run. I hate to say it, but it’s working!”