David\u2019s view<\/p>\n
Republicans are very comfortable using AI for almost anything in politics, and they\u2019ll say so. Democrats are not very comfortable, and they won\u2019t talk about it.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re only starting to see how those different views might change campaigning. But Republicans are optimistic that their approach will win out.<\/p>\n
\u201cProfessionally we have an advantage, because we\u2019re willing to push the envelope on this stuff and take risks,\u201d said GOP strategist Eric Wilson, an AI evangelist. \u201cThe professional class on the Republican side is very much saying: \u2018Yeah, let\u2019s use everything we have to our advantage. There\u2019s no prize for running an artisanal campaign.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
In Democratic shops, the conversation about whether to use AI tools internally is quiet and cautious. One example: I\u2019m told the Democratic National Committee has approved the use of only Google\u2019s Gemini LLM, and not its competitors, for official work like data analysis and coding. Other Democratic groups have used AI tools to build campaign sites more quickly, replacing some hours of busywork.<\/p>\n
But there is Democratic dread about the consequences of widespread AI use, like employment loss for visual artists and camera crews, that the GOP doesn\u2019t share. While data center construction and favorable tax subsidies for the AI industry are politically unpopular<\/a>, only Democrats have a faction<\/a> that wants to stop the bulldozers. Democrats have introduced<\/a> the sole successful proposals to restrict AI in political messaging.<\/p>\n Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, author of a bill that would let<\/a> candidates sue for damages if their opponents ran \u201cmaterially deceptive\u201d AI ads, told me that such deception was already a problem in her primary.<\/p>\n \u201cIt depends on if it\u2019s based in fact, or if it\u2019s just made up bullsh*t,\u201d she said, a few days before being forced into a runoff with former Rep. Colin Allred. \u201cColin has done some AI-generated ads with my face in them; I don\u2019t like it, but I don\u2019t have a huge problem with it. That is, in fact, me. What I don\u2019t like is using AI to create an image of me with Trump and Kristi Noem, because that\u2019s just never happened.\u201d<\/p>\n That defense of observed reality doesn\u2019t have much power on the right, which has fully embraced AI image generation. The tears of liberal-leaning artists<\/a> who won\u2019t get paid to make those images are a bonus.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not just the Trump operation diving in. The president\u2019s amplification of AI images has often happened in a political vacuum \u2014 replies on X, re-Truths on the president\u2019s social media account. By contrast, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has used AI in ways that deeply anger Democrats. Not that they can do anything about it.<\/p>\n This cycle\u2019s aggressive NRSC AI use started in October, when Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told Punchbowl News that his party was politically winning<\/a> the government shutdown and that \u201cevery day gets better for us.\u201d But he didn\u2019t say it on camera \u2014 a problem the NRSC solved with AI, creating a Schumer simulacrum<\/a> that smirked out the comment.<\/p>\n The backlash was brief and minor. Since then, the NRSC has used AI video generation to put leading Democrats in embarrassing situations.<\/p>\n Texas\u2019 James Talarico posted, but did not say, that \u201cradicalized white men\u201d are the biggest threat<\/a> to America. The NRSC made him say so, in a video.<\/p>\n North Carolina\u2019s Roy Cooper did not pose outside of a women\u2019s bathroom with a purple-haired bearded man, but he did in an NRSC clip, which had some<\/a> fun with the AI disclaimer: \u201cAI Slop, obviously Roy Cooper has much tinier hands.\u201d<\/p>\n After a while, Democrats stopped complaining about it.<\/p>\n \u201cEmbracing AI has allowed the NRSC to work harder and smarter while being better stewards of donor dollars,\u201d said NRSC communications director Joanna Rodriguez. \u201cCommittees and campaigns still need smart, talented operatives, but AI maximizes that same operative\u2019s abilities in a way that can save thousands of dollars and hours, if not days, of work.\u201d<\/p>\n Republicans can say that because they\u2019re confident that Democrats won\u2019t mobilize and match them ad for ad. There is too much social risk on the left in becoming the kind of campaign<\/a> that uses AI imagery; \u201cslop\u201d causes a backlash among progressives, but not among conservatives. Democrats also run the risk of hypocrisy. If a candidate said anything skeptical about AI\u2019s threat to workers or the proliferation of data centers, there\u2019s a genuine downside to using AI tools to clean up a photo.<\/p>\n Is there a corresponding benefit to boycotting it \u2013 to running what Wilson called an \u201cartisanal\u201d campaign? There is, in theory, a large bloc of voters who<\/a> fear AI\u2019s implications, bigger than the one that celebrates them. Democrats are aligning themselves with that mindset, handing Republicans the mantle of the AI-image party \u2026 and waiting for the backlash.<\/p>\n Room for Disagreement<\/p>\n It\u2019s no coincidence that California Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s busy social media accounts make more use of AI imagery<\/a> than any other Democratic campaign. He is parodying Trump, and a movement that\u2019s been using AI to instantly heat up memes<\/a>, for years.<\/p>\n But his team isn\u2019t the only Democratic one that thinks the party needs to get over its allergy to AI.<\/p>\n \u201cDemocrats should be using AI in ad-making,\u201d said Julian Mulvey, a Democratic ad maker at Fight Strategies, the firm that makes<\/a> populist content for Zohran Mamdani and Graham Platner. \u201cCalifornia has regulations so you cannot put words into opponents\u2019 mouths, and there are quite rigorous disclaimer requirements. That\u2019s good. [But] AI opens up too many visual storytelling opportunities to not embrace.\u201d<\/p>\n Notable<\/p>\n The best early look<\/a> at the Dem\/GOP AI gap came from Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier in the American Prospect.<\/p>\n