- The 2026 total political ad market is projected at ~$4B across all formats — digital accounts for roughly $1.8-2.2B of that, with Connected TV (streaming) surpassing broadcast TV for the first time.
- Door-to-door canvassing adds 5-10 turnout percentage points per contacted voter — but at $50-80 per door contact, it costs far more than digital impressions ($8-25 CPM).
- The strategic formula: digital ads for broad awareness and name ID at scale; canvassing for final mobilization of identified supporters in competitive precincts.
- Per persuaded or mobilized voter, canvassing vastly outperforms digital — the cost gap only justifies digital-heavy strategies when volunteer density is too low to cover target universes.
2026 Political Ad Market Breakdown by Format
| Format | Projected 2026 Spend | vs. 2022 | Key Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broadcast TV | $1.2B | Flat | Mass reach, unskippable, declining |
| Connected TV / Streaming | $950M | +75% vs. 2022 | Targeted, measurable, premium CPM |
| Digital (Meta, Google) | $780M | +22% vs. 2022 | Precise targeting, real-time optimization |
| Radio | $380M | −8% | Declining but effective rural reach |
| Mail (USPS) | $340M | +5% | Persuasion mail, high-trust format |
| Other (OOH, podcast, etc.) | $350M | +18% | Fragmented, growing podcast segment |
The Research on Door-Knocking: What Actually Moves Votes
The canonical study (Green and Gerber, 2000) found face-to-face canvassing increased turnout by approximately one vote per fourteen contacts — a 7% conversion rate. Subsequent research has refined this: non-partisan GOTV canvassing (just encouraging voting) produces smaller effects (3–5%) than partisan canvassing that includes persuasion content (8–12% for truly persuadable voters).
The key is targeting. Knocking on doors of strong partisans of your own party produces modest turnout gains but no persuasion. Knocking on weak partisans and genuine persuadable voters (modeled at 40–60% probability to support your candidate) produces the highest ROI. Modern campaigns allocate canvassing resources almost entirely to this persuadable universe in competitive districts.
Digital ads show persuasion effects that are real but smaller: meta-analyses find approximately 0.5–1.5 point shifts in vote intention from a sustained digital campaign exposure. The advantage is scale: a $500,000 digital buy can reach 2 million voters, while the same spend on canvassing covers roughly 7,000 contacted voters. The two approaches complement rather than substitute each other.
Democrats vs. Republicans: Ground Game Comparison
| Dimension | Democrats | Republicans | 2026 Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labor Infrastructure | SEIU, UAW, Culinary Workers — 14M members | Minimal (right-to-work erosion of unions) | D+ |
| Faith Networks | Black church organizing (AME, Baptist) | Evangelical networks, AFP church outreach | R+ rural, D+ urban |
| Volunteer Enthusiasm | High — D+6 environment drives sign-ups | Lower — incumbency and status quo dampen urgency | D+ |
| Tech / Data Tools | NGP VAN (industry standard), OpenVPB | GOP Data Center, i360 (Koch-linked) | Roughly Equal |
| Paid Staff Capacity | DCCC investing $40M+ in field staff | NRCC building field ops from smaller base | D+ |
| Outside Groups | Indivisible, MoveOn, state-level Dem parties | AFP (~$80M field budget), Club for Growth | R+ on outside spend |
Democrats historically hold a ground game advantage rooted in labor union infrastructure — Culinary Workers in Nevada, SEIU in healthcare states, UAW in Michigan and Ohio. In 2026, union households represent 15% of the electorate but 20–25% of Democratic volunteers, providing organizational depth that PAC money cannot easily replicate.
Republicans have narrowed the gap via AFP (Americans for Prosperity) and party-aligned evangelical church networks. In 2022, Republicans out-canvassed Democrats in several swing districts by activating faith community volunteers. In a D+6 national environment, Democratic enthusiasm translates into volunteer depth — but campaigns need to manage that enthusiasm into productive canvassing rather than just rallies and social media engagement.
2026 Competitive Race Ground Game Deployment
Where each party is investing field resources in the most consequential 2026 battlegrounds.
| State / Race | Democratic Field Advantage | Republican Field Advantage | Key Mobilization Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia Senate | Stacey Abrams org infrastructure, metro Atlanta church network | AFP Georgia chapter, rural evangelical outreach | Black voter turnout in Fulton/DeKalb |
| Michigan Senate | UAW + SEIU, 280,000 union household contacts | Right-to-work advantage reduced; AFP west Michigan | Dearborn Arab-American community (split ticket risk) |
| Pennsylvania Senate | Philadelphia labor council + Pittsburgh SEIU | Rural PA county parties, faith networks | Philadelphia suburban turnout differential |
| Wisconsin Senate | Milwaukee-area union canvassing, college campuses | Rural counties, Fox Valley evangelical outreach | Madison student GOTV (low midterm participation) |
| Nevada Senate | Culinary Workers (26,000 members, trained precinct operation) | AFP Nevada, Mormon community (Clark County suburban) | Culinary member GOTV — most efficient D field op in US |
| Arizona Senate | Mi Familia Vota, Arizona AFL-CIO | AFP Arizona, Turning Point USA (Tempe-based) | Latino voter registration gains since 2020 |
| NY-17, NY-22 (House) | DCCC direct investment, NYC labor council | Incumbent-led canvassing, local GOP party chairs | Westchester/Hudson Valley suburb persuasion |
