Kristen McDonald Rivet won. Get what Kristen McDonald Rivet 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.
18 ads analyzed · 10 use a rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and name calling.
The words doing the persuading
From the Rivet side · Paid for by FOR MICHIGAN ACTION FUND“…Thomas Smith dropped out of his own primary, then won anyway. He's also an extreme racist promising to advance Trump's agenda in Washington.
Make your plan to vote by November…”Loaded LanguageSee this ad →
From the Smith side · Paid for by America PAC“…do if they controlled Congress. That's what will happen if Kristen McDonald Rivet wins. Stop her in her tracks. Make a plan to vote.”Loaded LanguageSee this ad →
Kristen McDonald Rivet (Democrat) and Thomas Smith (Republican) are the nominees for Michigan's 8th congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. Kristen McDonald Rivet is the incumbent. By their latest FEC reports, Kristen McDonald Rivet's campaign had raised $6.9 million (through October 14, 2026) and Thomas Smith's campaign $561,000 (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $544,000 for Kristen McDonald Rivet and $1.9 million against; $186,000 for Thomas Smith and $28,000 against. Semblen has analyzed 18 ads in this race; 10 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and name calling.
Kristen McDonald Rivet (DEM, incumbent), Thomas Smith (REP).
2 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 18 ads analyzed, 10 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-23.
Also on every Michigan ballot: 2 statewide ballot measures →The ballot wording and the official arguments, read for rhetorical techniques.
How to vote in Michigan
From Michigan's official election office. Each line links to the official page it came from.
Registration
Register by Mon, Oct 19 (online/mail: received or postmarked 15 days before (Oct 19); after that, in person at local clerk with proof of residency through 8 p.m. Election Day). Same-day registration: in person at local clerk's office (not polling place) with proof of residency, in line by 8 p.m. (passed)Source: michigan.gov ↗
Early voting in person
Sat, Oct 24 to Sun, Nov 1 (mandatory period begins second Saturday before Election Day; communities may start as early as the 29th day before (Oct 5)) (passed)Source: michigan.gov ↗
By mail
Anyone can vote by mail; request a ballot by Fri, Oct 30 (online/mail: received by 5 p.m. Friday before (Oct 30); in person at clerk: 4 p.m. Monday Nov 2); return it by Tue, Nov 3 (received by clerk by 8 p.m. Election Day; military/overseas postmarked by Election Day and received within 6 days) (passed)Source: michigan.gov ↗
Checked October 6, 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 2026-10-23. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
18 · started running between 2026-07-18 and 2026-10-22
$13,800–20,746 on all ads, $10,000–13,671 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“Stop her in her tracks.” — Loaded Language, paid for by America PAC
· 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 Kristen McDonald Rivet in office
Kristen McDonald Rivet won. Get what Kristen McDonald Rivet 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.
Loaded Language (6), Name Calling (6), Appeal to Fear (5)
All from 1 group backing Smith; none from the campaign itself.
Not placed on a side (3 sponsors)
3
1 of 3
Glittering Generalities (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.
56% of the 18 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (10 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 50% 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.
radicalin 3 ads· e.g. “radical socialists”, “radical left”
socialistin 3 ads· e.g. “radical socialists”, “the socialists”
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.
CLF— $1.6M opposing RivetLargest 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, PresidentAMERICA PAC— $163K opposing Rivet
· 7 ads on this pageLargest donors:
Elon Musk $50.3M (100%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEOCENTER FORWARD COMMITTEE— $150K supporting RivetLargest donors:
CENTER FORWARD $3.5M (92%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); PMI US CORPORATE SERVICES $150K (4%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); CHEVRON $100K (3%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)ROLLING SEA ACTION FUND— $150K supporting RivetLargest donors:
LET IT RESOUND $1.1M (81%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $94K opposing Rivetand 14 more
Bundled through PACs
$346K through 14 PACs · FEC bulk data of 2026-11-01JSTREETPAC— $170K from 189 giftsLobbyist/registrant PACWELCOMEPAC— $36K from 11 giftsEMILYS LIST— $33K from 88 giftsSWING LEFT— $29K from 12 giftsZINC COLLECTIVE PAC— $24K from 7 giftsand 9 more
444 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
10000 LAKES PAC $2,500
A PLEASANT PENINSULA PAC $4,000
ABUNDANCE PAC $5,000
ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,500
ACADEMY OF RAIL LABOR ATTORNEYS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1,500
AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC) $4,000
AGRICULTURAL RETAILERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTE $2,500
TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TTD/PAC) $2,000
TRI-STATE MAXED-OUT WOMEN $18K
TROY CARTER FOR CONGRESS $1,000
TRUCKING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS INC. $1,000
TRUEDEM LEADERSHIP FUND $2,000
TYSON FOODS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TYPAC) $2,000
U A LOCAL 85 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $10K
UA UNION PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS VOTE! PAC (UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA) $5,000
UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM) 'INT'L UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW $10K
UBS AMERICAS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (UBS PAC) $10K
UNITED EGG ASSOCIATION EGGPAC $1,000
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA - COAL MINERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1,000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. PAC (UPSPAC) $3,000
UNITED POSTMASTERS AND MANAGERS OF AMERICA POLITICAL FUND $1,000
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE PAC - USAA EMPLOYEE PAC $1,000
UNITED STATES BEET SUGAR ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,500
UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TELECOMPAC) $500
UNITED STEELWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND $10K
UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE PAC (UWM PAC) $6,000
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED PAC (UNITEDHEALTH GROUP PAC) $5,500
$561K through 2026-10-14individuals $20K · PACs $16K · candidate's own money, incl. loans $7,605 · from the candidate's other committees $518K · cash on hand $85K
Outside spending
$28K opposing Smith · $186K supporting Smith· latest reported 2026-11-05
Largest outside spenders
AMERICA PAC— $95K supporting Smith
· 7 ads on this pageLargest donors:
Elon Musk $50.3M (100%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEONO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $91K supporting SmithBUILDING TOGETHER— $12K opposing SmithFOR MICHIGAN ACTION FUND— $11K opposing Smith
· 1 ad on this pageNEIGHBOR VOICES PAC— $4,188 opposing Smith, $405 supporting SmithLargest donors:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES $1.0M (80%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Lisa Mennet $250K (20%), Perigee Fund, Founder
Paid for by KRISTEN FOR MICHIGANfrom 2026-10-22spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Senator Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords and I recorded this short video together. Give it a watch, then chip in $5, $15, or whatever you can to help us fight back against the MAGA attacks.
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 International Union of Operating Engineersfrom 2026-10-172 variantsspend $0–198200–1,998 impressions
IUOE members work hard for their paychecks. That's why we need leaders like Kristen McDonald Rivet who will work just as hard.
Kristen knows what it takes for working families to survive:
- Good jobs
- Fair wages
- Strong Unions
Make your IUOE union voice heard this November. Vote Kristen McDonald Rivet for Congress.
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 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMfrom 2026-10-13spend $100–19915,000–19,999 impressions
UAW members, like you, screen candidates for the 2026 election so you can make an informed decision on or before November 3rd.
Kristen McDonald Rivet got the UAW stamp of approval for Congress because they will fight for higher wages, affordable healthcare, job security, and a dignified retirement.
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Kristen McDonald Rivet won. Get what Kristen McDonald Rivet 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 Working Americafrom 2026-10-096 variantsspend $100–69446,100–59,994 impressions
Think about how far you drive to the nearest emergency room. A 2025 report found up to 13 rural hospitals in Michigan at risk of closing, 5 at immediate risk. That was before the 2025 law cut Medicaid. Kristen McDonald Rivet voted no on that law.
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 Working Americafrom 2026-10-096 variantsspend $300–89476,000–89,994 impressions
Kristen McDonald Rivet voted for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. It passed the House 358 to 32 on June 23. The bill is built to add housing supply, rework federal housing programs and limit big corporations buying up single-family homes.
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 Working Americafrom 2026-10-096 variantsspend $200–79458,200–71,994 impressions
Michigan's working families tax credit used to be worth 6% of the federal credit. Kristen McDonald Rivet sponsored the bill in Lansing to raise it to 30%. In the 2025 filing season, about 665,000 Michigan families claimed it. Their state and federal credits averaged $3,856.
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 America PACfrom 2026-10-084 variantsspend $1,800–2,19637,000–52,996 impressions
If you don't plan to vote, you're handing this election over to Kristen McDonald Rivet and the radical socialists. Don't let them win. Make a plan to vote now.
Name Calling: Labels the opponent and her allies with derogatory ideological terms instead of addressing their positions. Flagged: “radical socialists”.
Loaded Language: The charged word 'radical' is used to provoke a negative emotional reaction.
Black-and-White Fallacy: Frames the choice as either voting or handing victory to the opponent, ignoring other options. Flagged: “If you don't plan to vote, you're handing this election over”.
Appeal to Fear: Implies a threatening outcome if 'them' win, urging action to prevent it.
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-10-086 variantsspend $1,700–2,29450,000–63,994 impressions
Imagine how much damage 435 AOCs could do if they controlled Congress. That's what will happen if Kristen McDonald Rivet wins. Stop her in her tracks. Make a plan to vote.
Appeal to Fear: Invites the reader to imagine a vivid hypothetical catastrophe from a congressional takeover to provoke anxiety. Flagged: “Imagine how much damage 435 AOCs could do if they controlled Congress.”.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Overstates the situation by imagining an entire Congress of 435 copies of one politician. Flagged: “435 AOCs”.
Loaded Language: Aggressive, combative phrasing frames the opponent as a threat to be halted. Flagged: “Stop her in her tracks.”.
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-10-082 variantsspend $1,000–1,19814,000–19,998 impressions
This election will come down to one thing: stopping the radical socialists from taking control of our country. And it starts with stopping Kristen McDonald Rivet. Find your polling location and make a plan to vote.
Name Calling: Uses the derogatory label 'radical socialists' to discredit opponents rather than address arguments.
Appeal to Fear: Frames the election as a threat of opponents seizing control of the country to provoke anxiety. Flagged: “stopping the radical socialists from taking control of our country”.
Black-and-White Fallacy: Reduces the whole election to a single issue, ignoring other considerations. Flagged: “This election will come down to one thing”.
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged word 'radical' is used to stir a reaction.
Paid for by FOR MICHIGAN ACTION FUNDfrom 2026-10-073 variantsspend $1,000–1,29787,000–102,997 impressions
MI-08 is one of the closest races in the country, and students could cast the deciding votes.
Kristen McDonald Rivet is fighting to lower costs and ban Congressional stock trading.
Republican Thomas Smith dropped out of his own primary, then won anyway. He's also an extreme racist promising to advance Trump's agenda in Washington.
Make your plan to vote by November 3 at 4mich.org/vote
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 MI; or it ran mostly in MI 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.