Manny Rutinel won. Get what Manny Rutinel 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.
129 ads analyzed · 46 use a rhetorical technique, most often name calling and loaded language.
The words doing the persuading
From the Evans side · Paid for by ELECTGABEEVANS.COM“Once again, Denver is topping the national rankings—for all the wrong reasons.
Radical Democrat Socialist policies have made our communities less safe, driven out businesses, and made Colorado harder to…”Name CallingSee this ad →
From the Rutinel side · Paid for by MANNY RUTINEL FOR CONGRESS“Gabe Evan votes 100% with Donald Trump, and Colorado families pay for it. He voted seven times for Trump’s war in Iran, sending…”Name CallingSee this ad →
Gabe Evans (Republican) and Manny Rutinel (Democrat) are the nominees for Colorado's 8th congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. Gabe Evans is the incumbent. By their latest FEC reports, Gabe Evans's campaign had raised $7.2 million (through October 14, 2026) and Manny Rutinel's campaign $9.5 million (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $2.5 million for Gabe Evans and $12.1 million against; $6.8 million for Manny Rutinel and $9.6 million against. Semblen has analyzed 129 ads in this race; 46 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often name calling and loaded language.
Gabe Evans (REP, incumbent), Manny Rutinel (DEM).
7 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 129 ads analyzed, 46 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-28.
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 2026-10-28. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
129 · started running between 2025-12-02 and 2026-10-26
$271,600–365,103 on all ads, $234,400–298,937 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“Radical Democrat Socialist policies” — Name Calling, paid for by ELECTGABEEVANS.COM
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
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 Manny Rutinel in office
Manny Rutinel won. Get what Manny Rutinel 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
Evans (R)
36
25 of 36 (69%)
Name Calling (17), Loaded Language (13), Appeal to Fear (9)
Evans's campaign
19
13 of 19 (68%)
Name Calling (10), Loaded Language (8), Appeal to Fear (4)
5 groups backing Evans
17
12 of 17 (71%)
Name Calling (7), Appeal to Fear (5), Glittering Generalities (5)
Rutinel (D)
64
8 of 64 (12%)
Loaded Language (5), Exaggeration/Hyperbole (3), Glittering Generalities (3)
Rutinel's campaign
20
6 of 20 (30%)
Loaded Language (5), Exaggeration/Hyperbole (3), Name Calling (2)
4 groups backing Rutinel
44
2 of 44 (5%)
Glittering Generalities (2)
Not placed on a side (13 sponsors)
29
13 of 29 (45%)
Loaded Language (8), Name Calling (8), Bandwagon Appeal (3)
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.
Rutinelreported spending to oppose Evans in the general election (FEC)
1
0 of 1
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.
36% of the 129 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (46 ads).
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.
HMP— $7.8M opposing EvansLargest 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)MAINSTREAM COLORADO FUND— $1.2M opposing EvansLCV VICTORY FUND— $716K opposing EvansLargest donors:
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC. $18.0M (81%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Amos Hostetter $600K (3%), Pilot House Associates LLC, Chairman; DEMOCRACY PAC $500K (2%); Giovanna Randall $375K (2%), Randall Apparel, Designer; Eric Laufer $375K (2%), Laufer Wind Group, Film ProducerAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $614K supporting Evans
· 7 ads on this pageLargest donors:
KOCH INC $30.0M (33%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); STAND TOGETHER INC. $20.0M (22%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Jim C Walton $7.0M (8%), Self-Employed, Philanthropist; S Robson Walton $7.0M (8%), Retired, Retired; STAND TOGETHER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC $6.5M (7%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)JOBS AND DEMOCRACY PAC— $599K opposing Evans
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
PUBLIC FIRST ACTION INC $12.7M (65%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); PUBLIC FIRST $4.0M (21%); PUBLIC FIRST ACTION $2.6M (13%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Jan Leike $100K (1%), Anthropic, Researcherand 37 more
CLF— $3.7M opposing Rutinel
· 4 ads on this pageLargest donors:
AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK $64.3M (25%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Elon Musk $30.0M (12%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEO; Timothy Mellon $21.0M (8%), Self-Employed, Investments; Miriam Adelson $10.0M (4%), Adelson Drug Clinic, Physician; Paul E Singer $8.0M (3%), EMC, PresidentSAFETY & AFFORDABILITY PAC INC.— $2.5M opposing RutinelNO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $1.5M opposing RutinelLCV VICTORY FUND— $1.1M supporting RutinelLargest donors:
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC. $18.0M (81%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Amos Hostetter $600K (3%), Pilot House Associates LLC, Chairman; DEMOCRACY PAC $500K (2%); Giovanna Randall $375K (2%), Randall Apparel, Designer; Eric Laufer $375K (2%), Laufer Wind Group, Film ProducerLATINO VICTORY FUND— $1.0M supporting RutinelLargest donors:
PUBLIC FIRST ACTION $2.0M (58%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); OPPORTUNITY FORWARD ALLIANCE $500K (15%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); 5000 BROADWAY PRODUCTIONS $130K (4%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); CAINES, LAURA $127K (4%); ALTAMED HEALTH $100K (3%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)and 34 more
Bundled through PACs
none reported · FEC bulk data of 2026-11-01
33 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
314 ACTION FUND $5,000
AHORA PAC $2,000
AMERICAN DREAM FOR ALL PAC $3,500
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION $2,500
BLUE MOMENTUM PAC $5,000
CA LUV PAC (CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP UNITED FOR VICTORY PAC) $5,000
CHC BOLD PAC $5,000
COMMITTEE TO ELECT ANDY VARGAS $500
COMMITTEE TO ELECT FRANK MORAN $250
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA - COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE $5,000
CRUZ COMMITTEE $100
DE COLORES PAC $3,500
DEMOCRATS RESHAPING AMERICA (DREAMPAC) $6,000
DEMOCRATS WIN FUND $1,000
DOING RIGHT - RESULTS ACTION UNITY LEADERSHIP PAC $1,000
EMILY RANDALL FOR CONGRESS $1,000
FRIENDS OF JOSELINE PENA-MELNYK $500
INT'L UNION UNITED AUTO AEROSPACE & AGRI IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW $5,000
JANE FONDA CLIMATE PAC $5,000
JOHANNY CEPEDA-FREYTIZ FOR PA $250
JUSTICE LEAGUE PAC $3,500
LATINO VICTORY FUND $2,500
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ACTION FUND $50
LIBERTY-LIBERTAD PAC $3,500
PAF $3,500
PATRIOT PAC $2,500
PETE AGUILAR FOR CONGRESS $2,000
PURPOSE PAC $2,500
RESILIENT MAJORITY PAC $1,000
RISING DEMS $3,500
ROBERT GARCIA FOR CONGRESS $1,000
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION) $5,000
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB $5,000
Paid for by ELECTGABEEVANS.COMfrom 2026-10-262 variantsspend $0–1984,000–5,998 impressions
Some people have been asking me if this picture is AI. Nope, it's real.
This is my opponent, Manny Rutinel, protesting meat in college. The sign reads "1 lb. of beef equals 180 showers."
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUNDfrom 2026-10-26spend $300–39915,000–19,999 impressions
Children trafficked, drugged, degraded. And Manny Rutinel?
Manny Rutinel voted against mandatory minimum prison sentences for convicted child sex traffickers.
Traffickers who prey on children, Manny Rutinel gave them a sweetheart deal. No minimum jail time - allowing dangerous predators to walk free. Mercy for monsters.
Too busy looking out for himself to look after our children. Manny Rutinel. Dangerously wrong.
Manny Rutinel won. Get what Manny Rutinel 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 ClearPath Action Fundfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–997,000–7,999 impressions
Prosperity isn't guaranteed. It's powered.
To have a rich economy, America needs to be energy rich. Senator Susan Collins is fighting for more American energy to keep costs down for Maine families.
Vote Gabe Evans by Tuesday, November 3.
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
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.