Vice-President Kamala Harris outspent former President Donald Trump by 20-1 on Facebook and Instagram in the week surrounding their debate, capitalising on the moment to plaster battleground states with ads and to hunt for new donors nationwide.

The lopsided spending — $12.2 million to $611,228 on Meta’s platforms, according to company records — was hardly an outlier. Ever since Harris entered the race, her campaign has overwhelmed the Trump operation with an avalanche of digital advertising, outspending his by tens of millions of dollars and setting off alarm among some Republicans.

Four years ago Trump, then holding the White House, drastically outspent Democrats online early in the election cycle in hopes of gaining an advantage. Now Trump, facing a cash shortfall, is making a very different bet that emphasises the unique appeal of his online brand, the durability of a donor list built over nearly a decade and his belief in the power of television.

The difference was especially stark on screens across the most contested battlegrounds in the week surrounding the debate. In Pennsylvania, Harris spent $1.3 million on Meta’s platforms, compared with $22,465 by Trump. In Michigan, she laid out $1.5 million, while he spent only $34,790.

“We just can’t afford to abandon a platform to Democrats,” warned Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist and the executive director of the Center for Campaign Innovation, which presses conservatives to embrace technology.

Trump’s campaign has spent far more heavily on Google, especially on YouTube ads that can closely resemble traditional television But even on Google, a New York Times analysis of advertising records in the seven top battleground states shows that Harris’ political committees have doubled Trump’s spending, $25.7 million to $12.8 million, since she joined the race.

Trump has courted digital-first audiences in other ways, stopping by a bitcoin bar in New York this week; talking with YouTube stars, streamers and podcasters; joining TikTok; and even creating his own social platform. But his comparatively light paid digital presence could mean he fails to reach potential supporters.

Social media has become an important theatre of combat for campaigns, both as a source of grassroots fundraising and as a place to draw undecided voters.

New York Times News Service