COLUMBIA, S.C. — With just over a month until the Nov. 3 election, South Carolina’s campaigns are entering the most intense and consequential phase of the political season. Candidates are no longer content to rely solely on traditional stump speeches, door-knocking, or rallies; instead, they are using every available tool to reach voters wherever they are — in their living rooms, on their phones, or scrolling through social media. Television has long been the undisputed king of campaign advertising, and it remains a powerful force in American politics. But the way people watch television is changing, and campaigns must change with it or risk being left behind. In the closely watched U.S. Senate race in South Carolina, this transformation is playing out in real time. Dr. Annie Andrews, a Democratic candidate for the Senate, said that television and other screens are playing a major role in her campaign’s ability to connect with voters. “I think it’s having a huge impact on our campaign,” Andrews said. Her observation speaks to a larger truth: in an age of information overload, the medium through which a candidate delivers their message can be just as important as the message itself. The race between Andrews and her Republican opponent, Darline Graham, has become a case study in how modern campaigns are adapting to a fragmented media environment. While Andrews has been a constant presence on airwaves and across digital platforms, Graham has taken a strikingly different approach, one that has left political observers guessing and voters searching for answers.
Television remains a key part of campaign strategy, but digital platforms have fundamentally expanded the ways candidates can reach voters and tailor their messages to specific audiences. In the past, a campaign’s media plan was relatively simple: buy television ads during popular shows, especially the evening news, and hope that enough undecided voters were watching. Today, campaigns have access to a dizzying array of tools that allow them to micro-target voters based on their age, gender, race, interests, online behavior, and even their voting history. They can serve ads to people on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and streaming services, sometimes without those viewers even realizing they are being targeted. This level of precision was unimaginable just a decade ago, and it has transformed the art of political communication. However, this evolution has a dark side. Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright warned that the digital world has become a breeding ground for false and misleading information. “The challenge with that is, it’s the place where most of the misinformation, disinformation, and lies take place,” Seawright said. His warning is not just academic. In recent years, voters have been exposed to foreign interference, coordinated disinformation campaigns, and viral hoaxes designed to manipulate elections. The very tools that allow campaigns to speak directly to voters also allow bad actors to spread confusion and sow division. For voters, this means they must be more vigilant than ever about the information they consume and share. For campaigns, it means they must be prepared to respond quickly to false attacks and correct the record in a fast-paced digital environment where a single misleading post can be seen by millions within hours.
Despite the rapid growth of digital advertising, Seawright said television is not going to disappear anytime soon. Rather, the way voters watch television is evolving, and campaigns must adjust their strategies accordingly. “I think tv is going to traditionally exist. The question is where you get your tv and how you get your tv. Whether it’s on your device, Whether it’s on your cellphone, Whether it’s on your iPad,” Seawright said. This is more than just a technical distinction; it has profound implications for how campaigns spend their money. Traditional broadcast and cable television still reach a large audience, especially among older voters, who are also the most likely to cast ballots in midterm and presidential elections. But younger voters — and an increasing number of older ones — have cut the cord, canceled their cable subscriptions, and moved to streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and YouTube TV. To reach these viewers, campaigns must invest in connected television advertising, pre-roll video ads, and sponsored content on social media. This creates new challenges for media planners, who must now decide how to allocate limited resources across a fragmented and ever-changing landscape. A campaign cannot simply buy a block of time on the local news and call it a day. It must develop a sophisticated media strategy that blends traditional television with digital platforms, all while tracking the results in real time and adjusting course when necessary. For candidates like Andrews, who are running for office for the first time, this complex environment presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, digital advertising allows a candidate to reach a highly targeted audience without spending millions of dollars. On the other hand, it is easy for a well-funded opponent or outside group to flood the zone with negative ads and misleading claims.
In the current Senate race, voters are seeing starkly different levels of television visibility between the two candidates. Dr. Annie Andrews has been a constant presence on the airwaves, running ads that introduce her background as a pediatrician, her commitment to expanding access to healthcare, and her vision for addressing the challenges facing South Carolina families. Her campaign has invested heavily in television, digital video, and social media, hoping to build name recognition and connect with voters across the state. By contrast, Darline Graham has not had the same presence on television since the beginning of the campaign. This silence has become a topic of intense speculation among political insiders. Seawright argued that Graham’s decision to stay off the airwaves is not an oversight but a deliberate strategy. “I think that she is hiding. Because she does not have the resume and the qualifications to be able to thoroughly discuss the issues. I think she plans to be a coattail rider and ride the republican wave and the republican brand,” Seawright said. His comments reflect a growing concern among Democrats that Graham is trying to nationalize the race, turning it into a referendum on the Republican Party rather than on her own qualifications or ideas. By avoiding debates, interviews, and even paid advertising, Graham may be hoping to avoid making the kind of gaffe or controversial statement that could hurt her chances in a state that leans Republican. But this approach also carries risks. A candidate who remains invisible for too long may struggle to build enthusiasm among voters, especially those who are looking for someone who can articulate a clear vision for the future. Moreover, by ceding the airwaves to her opponent, Graham allows Andrews to define the race on her own terms.
Andrews herself has no doubt that Graham’s strategy is intentional and carefully calibrated. “I do think it’s an explicit strategy, I think they’re banking on the fact that, with the name that she’s using on the ballot, her brothers name, her maiden name, and the F behind her name, that she’s gonna win this race,” Andrews said. The reference to the “F” behind the name is a pointed reminder that Graham’s party affiliation — Republican — is prominently displayed on the ballot. In a state like South Carolina, where Republicans have dominated statewide elections for years, the party label alone can be enough to attract a significant number of votes, regardless of the candidate’s qualifications or experience. Andrews is suggesting that Graham is relying on a combination of name recognition and party loyalty to carry her to victory, rather than making a positive case for her candidacy. Seawright offered a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging that Graham’s silence has had an impact on her campaign, but noting that it may also be protecting her from making mistakes. “I think tv is going to traditionally exist. The question is where you get your tv and how you get your tv,” he said, reiterating his belief that the medium is not the problem — the message is. By staying out of the spotlight, Graham avoids the risk of being quoted out of context or facing tough questions about her positions. But she also misses the opportunity to introduce herself to voters, explain her platform, and respond to attacks. A request for comment was sent to Graham’s campaign, but no response was received, leaving the reasoning behind her strategy unclear and allowing speculation to continue.
As the campaign enters its final stretch, the importance of early voting cannot be overstated. Early voting for the November election starts Oct. 19, giving voters more than a week before Election Day to cast their ballots. This means the next few weeks are the last chance for campaigns to reach voters before they make their final decisions. For Andrews, this means continuing to press her case across every available platform, from traditional television to streaming services to social media. For Graham, it may mean staying the course, trusting the political environment, and hoping that the Republican brand is enough to overcome her opponent’s advantages in fundraising and visibility. The contrast between these two strategies reflects a broader debate about the future of political campaigning. In an age of algorithms, micro-targeting, and viral misinformation, is it better to be everywhere at once, or to maintain a sense of mystery and avoid the risks of overexposure? Seawright’s warning about the dangers of misinformation adds another layer of complexity. The digital tools that allow campaigns to reach voters with surgical precision also make it easier for bad actors to spread false and divisive content. Voters must be more discerning than ever, verifying the information they see and seeking out reliable sources. The Nov. 3 election will be a test not only of the candidates and their strategies, but also of the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of a rapidly changing media landscape. South Carolina, with its mix of urban and rural voters, its significant African American population, and its history of competitive races, will be a key battleground. As the first votes are cast, the outcome of the Senate race will have implications that extend far beyond the Palmetto State. It will be a measure of whether traditional television advertising, or the chaotic world of digital media, is the most effective way to win elections in the 21st century.