Eric Wilson

Insanely clever marketing. It’s a water stencil so what they’re doing is power washing the sidewalk and creating the words with the dirt that remains.

@frpatrickop Beautiful church. Where is it?

Please pray for Stephen and Alexandria, whose wedding is tomorrow.

You can find the full thing here: blueprint.democrats.org/p/a-message-fr… I just can't fathom a world in which this is a good idea to publish.

The author argues the Harris Super PAC made the economy case but left Trump undefined, and Harris lost economy-first voters by 63 points. Recommends future nominees rethink whether a designated Super PAC is even worth it.

The DNC's after-action report ("Build to Win. Build to Last.") is making the rounds. It's more rant than analysis and the annotations are wild. Here are the digital, data, and tech sections worth a closer look: ⏬

@som3thingwicked thank you!

We need more conversations like this, but I'd argue you're missing a lot of nuance. Emotional vs. strategic isn't a binary. Donor intent is always a series of concentric circles. Small dollar political donors are no different than private sector investors, they just want different dividends. And, yes, for many it's as simple as donating = how they can participate in the larger culture war. But it's naive to say such donors don't think strategically (or don't think that they're thinking strategically). They're more like guys who bet on their own football teams. Yes, there's an extra variable in play, but a parlay is still a parlay. The problem is industry tactics select for targeting that extra variable, mainly because it's the easiest to do and easiest to monetize (vs. nurture using proven fundraising tactics). It's easier to pay for a series of one-night stands than level up your game, especially once agencies get involved (prospecting). All prospecting agencies care about is wringing a wet towel so hard they get every last drop of water. It becomes a fait accompli - everyone using the same brand voice and same bull rush tactics to compete for the same "way too online" donors on everyone's data lists. It's a race to the bottom. Yes, you can make lots of money doing it, but that's irrelevant to whether you can't make more doing it different. The fact that President Trump has been at the center of this universe for 10 years is the only reason either sides gets away with tactics that are not only backwards from the private sector, but exactly backwards. Solid video, keep 'em coming.

Turns out small dollar donors don't have the moderating effect reformers hoped for...

here's more information on the book I mentioned: electionlawblog.org/?p=156115

Bottom line: the campaigns that shape what AI says about them will compound that advantage all cycle. Want this in your inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe to Campaign Trend: campaigntrend.com/best-practices/

AI tools stitch one answer from your site, LinkedIn, Ballotpedia, donor filings, and old company bios. If those sources disagree, the AI guesses. Pick your framing and copy it everywhere. Then re-audit monthly – citations drift 40–60% across the major tools.

55% of voters under 45 say they're likely to use ChatGPT or another chatbot to research who's on their ballot. In 2024, only 11% of the full electorate did. You can't email an AI and ask for a correction. But you can shape what it sees. ⏬