Jeff Hurd won. Get what Jeff Hurd says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
109 ads analyzed · 31 use a rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and glittering generalities.
The words doing the persuading
From the Hurd side · Paid for by Jeff Hurd for Congress“Congressman Jeff Hurd is fighting to protect our water resources and keep the Western Slope strong.
Add your name to stand with Jeff ⬇️
🇺🇸 OFFICIAL COLORADO WATER SURVEY 🇺🇸
Do you…”Glittering GeneralitiesSee this ad →
From the Romero side · Paid for by ROMERO FOR COLORADO“…this seat. But we need your help.
We can leave no stone unturned since Jeff Hurd is taking money from MAGA and huge corporations.
Please chip in $25 today to flip this seat BLUE!”Loaded LanguageSee this ad →
Jeff Hurd (Republican) and Dwayne Romero (Democrat) are the nominees for Colorado's 3rd congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. Jeff Hurd is the incumbent. By their latest FEC reports, Jeff Hurd's campaign had raised $4.2 million (through October 14, 2026) and Dwayne Romero's campaign $1.7 million (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $1.3 million for Jeff Hurd and $2.5 million against; $64,000 for Dwayne Romero and $2.5 million against. Semblen has analyzed 109 ads in this race; 31 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and glittering generalities.
Jeff Hurd (REP, incumbent), Dwayne Romero (DEM).
3 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 109 ads analyzed, 31 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-29.
Also on every Colorado ballot: 14 statewide ballot measures →The ballot wording and the official arguments, read for rhetorical techniques.
How to vote in Colorado
From Colorado's official election office. Each line links to the official page it came from.
Registration
Register by Mon, Oct 26 (To receive a mail ballot; in-person registration at a VSPC through Election Day). Same-day registration: In person at a VSPC (passed)Source: coloradosos.gov ↗Source: coloradosos.gov ↗
Early voting in person
Mon, Oct 19 to Tue, Nov 3 (Minimum required VSPCs open; counties mail ballots by Oct 9) (passed)Source: coloradosos.gov ↗
By mail
Anyone can vote by mail; return it by Tue, Nov 3 (Received by the county clerk by 7 p.m.; postmarks do not count) (passed)Source: coloradosos.gov ↗
Checked October 8, 2026. Rules can change; confirm with the official site before you go.
Something wrong or out of date? Tell us
A person reads every report and fixes errors the same day.
Got a political text?
Paste a campaign text message you’ve received. Semblen marks the persuasion techniques in its wording and lists the factual claims it makes. Take your name out first: what you paste is analyzed and kept like any text.
Findings
As of 2026-10-29. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
109 · started running between 2026-07-17 and 2026-10-26
A small box with these findings and the newest ads, updated as new ads are analyzed. Free for newsrooms, blogs and campaigns alike; it links back here.
Follow Jeff Hurd in office
Jeff Hurd won. Get what Jeff Hurd says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
Each side is the campaign plus the groups backing it. How a group is placed is explained below the table.
Side
Ads
With at least one technique
Most common
Hurd (R)
7
3 of 7
Glittering Generalities (3)
Hurd's campaign
6
2 of 6
Glittering Generalities (2)
1 group backing Hurd
1
1 of 1
Glittering Generalities (1)
Romero (D)
102
28 of 102 (27%)
Loaded Language (15), Name Calling (13), Glittering Generalities (11)
Romero's campaign
69
25 of 69 (36%)
Loaded Language (14), Glittering Generalities (10), Name Calling (10)
2 groups backing Romero
33
3 of 33 (9%)
Name Calling (3), Glittering Generalities (1), Loaded Language (1)
Read this before comparing the sides. Ads that attack an opponent use these techniques far more often than ads that introduce a candidate, whoever runs them, so the side running more attack ads shows a higher share. A technique is about wording, not about whether an ad is true. These are online ads only (Meta and YouTube), not television.
How a group is placed: by its own filings with the Federal Election Commission. A group is with a candidate when it reported spending to support that candidate, or to oppose the other one in the general election. The parties' own committees are with their nominee. Spending against a candidate in a primary places a group nowhere, and neither does our reading of its ads: a group with no such filing is listed as not placed. The sponsor table gives the reason for each.
Decide what counts
Not everyone would call every technique a problem. Untick the ones you'd call ordinary persuasion and the count updates.
28% of the 109 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (31 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 16% of ads.
The words doing the work
The words that show up most in phrases our model flagged as loaded language or name calling in this race's ads, by number of ads.
insiderin 3 ads· e.g. “the Washington insiders”, “whatever DC insiders tell him to”
rubber stampin 3 ads· e.g. “kowtowing rubber stamp”, “rubber stamp”
Semblen is free to read and has no ads. If this page was useful, you can support it.
Money in this race
From FEC filings for 2025–26. Outside spending is money a group spends on its own about a candidate — TV and online ads, mail, canvassing. It is not a donation to the campaign, and the candidate does not control it. Supporting means it was spent to help that candidate win; Opposing means it was spent to defeat them, usually on attack ads. Groups report it within 24 or 48 hours as the election nears. Raised is the campaign's own fundraising, as of its latest quarterly report. Largest donors come from each outside spender's own FEC receipts, with each donor's share of its itemized receipts; donors under $100,000 are not named. People are shown with the employer and occupation they reported. A donor that is itself a political committee is shown with its own largest donors. Companies and nonprofits don't report their funders to the FEC, so the trail ends there, and the page says so.
Jeff Hurd (REP, incumbent)
Raised
$4.2M through 2026-10-14individuals $2.3M · PACs $705K · party $2,350 · from the candidate's other committees $1.1M · cash on hand $238K
HMP— $2.5M opposing HurdLargest donors:
HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD $93.7M (39%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Reid G Hoffman $8.5M (4%), Greylock Partners, Partner; ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND $5.0M (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Fred Eychaner $5.0M (2%), Retired; UNITED ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ISSUES FUND $4.8M (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $383K supporting HurdCIVIC RENEWAL FUND INC.— $320K supporting HurdAMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION PAC (ACC PAC)— $236K supporting HurdLargest donors:
AMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION ACTION INC. $783K (94%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)CENTER FORWARD INITIATIVE INC (CFI)— $99K supporting HurdLargest donors:
CENTER FORWARD $925K (72%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ASA PAC) $225K (17%); POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS--PAC OF AAO $120K (9%)and 10 more
SAFETY & AFFORDABILITY PAC INC.— $2.0M opposing RomeroNO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $410K opposing RomeroCIVIC RENEWAL FUND INC.— $73K opposing RomeroWORKING AMERICA— $37K supporting Romero
· 32 ads on this pageMAGA INC.— $24K opposing RomeroLargest donors:
FORIS DAX, INC. $35.0M (8%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Diane Hendricks $25.0M (6%), Hendricks Holding CO Inc., Chairman; Miriam O Adelson $25.0M (6%), LAS Vegas Sands Corporation, Director OF Community Development; GEMINI TRUST COMPANY $24.4M (6%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Jeff Yass $16.0M (4%), Susquehanna International GRP, Managing Directorand 5 more
Bundled through PACs
none reported · FEC bulk data of 2026-11-01
11 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
BRITTANY PETTERSEN FOR COLORADO $2,000
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA - COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE $1,000
Jeff Hurd won. Get what Jeff Hurd says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
Paid for by Colorado Freedom Fundfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Colorado is worth fighting for. Jeff Hurd is committed to protecting our values, strengthening our communities, and preserving the Colorado we love for generations to come.
An ad is on this page because its own "Paid for by" line is a campaign in this race; or it comes from a national Senate group and ran mostly in CO; or it ran mostly in CO and names a candidate — unless its sponsor is a campaign for some other office. Ads from outside groups appear alongside the campaigns' own.
Campaigns run one text as many separate ads. Identical text from the same sponsor is one card here, marked with its number of variants.
A technique is a specific rhetorical move in the wording, found by our model and explained in one line. It is not a claim that the ad is false.
Claims are checked when a reader asks: press "Check this ad's claims" on a card. Running a check and seeing its verdicts are part of Semblen Pro, because each check costs money to run; anyone can see which claims an ad makes. The ten ads with the most money behind them in each race are checked ahead of time.
Claim verdicts say what the cited sources say. A verdict that an ad is wrong or misleading is shown only when it cites an established fact-checker or an institutional record — Congress, a federal agency, a court — and its confidence is not low; a weaker one is not shown at all. Each verdict shows what it rests on and how confident it is. If we got one wrong, press Disagree: a verdict that readers dispute and no one defends comes down.
Video ads come from the campaigns' own YouTube channels; the transcript is analyzed. Meta ads are analyzed on their text; their video and images are not, yet.