Matt Little won. Get what Matt Little 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.
26 ads analyzed · 9 use a rhetorical technique, most often glittering generalities and loaded language.
The words doing the persuading
From the Little side · Paid for by Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party“…he’ll fight to lower everyday costs, pass Medicare for All, protect Social Security, defend our freedoms, and take on Trump and the billionaire special interests that have rigged Washington…”Glittering GeneralitiesSee this ad →
From the Pratt side · Paid for by ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEE“When the numbers don’t add up, we get to the bottom of the issue.
We deserve better and I have the experience to bring accountability to Washington! It’s time we make…”Glittering GeneralitiesSee this ad →
Matt Little (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) and Eric Pratt (Republican) are the nominees for Minnesota's 2nd congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. By their latest FEC reports, Matt Little's campaign had raised $1.5 million (through October 14, 2026) and Eric Pratt's campaign $769,000 (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $828,000 for Matt Little and $17,000 against; $226,000 for Eric Pratt and $13,000 against. Semblen has analyzed 26 ads in this race; 9 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and glittering generalities.
Matt Little (DFL), Eric Pratt (REP).
5 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 26 ads analyzed, 9 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-30.
Also on every Minnesota ballot: 1 statewide ballot measure →The ballot wording and the official arguments, read for rhetorical techniques.
How to vote in Minnesota
From Minnesota's official election office. Each line links to the official page it came from.
Registration
Register by Tue, Oct 13 (registration closed during the 20 days before the election, so last day is the 21st day before; online, mail, or in person). Same-day registration: at your polling place with proof of residence (ID, approved document, or a registered voter vouching) (passed)Source: revisor.mn.gov ↗
Early voting in person
Fri, Sep 18 to Mon, Nov 2 (in-person absentee during the 46 days before; ballot-into-tabulator early voting in the last 18 days (from Oct 16)) (passed)Source: revisor.mn.gov ↗Source: revisor.mn.gov ↗
By mail
Anyone can vote by mail; request a ballot by Mon, Nov 2 (any time up to the day before the election; mail time makes a late request risky); return it by Tue, Nov 3 (received by 8 p.m. Election Day; envelopes arriving later are marked late and not counted) (passed)Source: revisor.mn.gov ↗Source: revisor.mn.gov ↗Source: revisor.mn.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 2026-10-30. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
26 · started running between 2026-07-31 and 2026-10-27
$12,700–18,462 on all ads, $10,600–14,184 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“defend our freedoms” — Glittering Generalities, paid for by Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party
· 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 Matt Little in office
Matt Little won. Get what Matt Little 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.
All from the campaign; no ads here from groups placed on this side.
Not placed on a side (2 sponsors)
2
0 of 2
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.
35% of the 26 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (9 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 19% of 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.
Matt Little (DFL)
Raised
$1.5M through 2026-10-14individuals $1.2M · PACs $131K · party $10K · candidate's own money, incl. loans $198K · cash on hand $205K
Outside spending
$17K opposing Little · $828K supporting Little· latest reported 2026-10-29
Largest outside spenders
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED FOR PATIENT PROTECTION— $261K supporting Little
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors:
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED $2.5M (100%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)MEDICARE FOR ALL— $200K supporting LittleLargest donors:
FELKNER, JOAN $953K (>99%)CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS PAC— $157K supporting LittleLargest donors:
BATTLEGROUND BLUE PAC $300K (11%)AMERICAN PRIORITIES (AP)— $121K supporting LittleLargest donors:
Mohammad Waqas $1.1M (14%), Showcase Commerce Inc., CEO; Omer Hasan $1.0M (13%), Retired; Hussain Mahrouq $925K (12%), MEI Group, CEO; FIG AND OLIVE ACTION $620K (8%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Afaq Ahmed $500K (7%), Self-Employed, InvestorAB PAC— $72K supporting LittleLargest donors:
AB FOUNDATION $13.0M (30%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); DEMOCRACY MATTERS $5.6M (13%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Deborah Simon $5.0M (11%), Retired; DEMOCRACY PAC $4.0M (9%); Lynn S Stern $1.0M (2%), Self Employed, Photographerand 5 more
Bundled through PACs
none reported · FEC bulk data of 2026-11-01
14 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT DFL $1,000
A NEW POLICY PAC $2,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC) $5,000
BRINGING EVERYONE TOGETHER THROUGH ADVOCACY $1,000
CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS PAC $5,000
DEMOCRACY SUMMER LEADERSHIP PAC $1,000
JUSTICE LEAGUE PAC $1,000
LEADERS WE DESERVE $5,000
MEDICARE FOR ALL $5,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRANCH 9 P.A.L. $1,000
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED PAC - A FUND FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA $3,000
OUR FIGHT OUR FUTURE $1,000
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION) $5,000
$769K through 2026-10-14individuals $480K · PACs $114K · party $10K · candidate's own money, incl. loans $112K · from the candidate's other committees $52K · cash on hand $173K
Paid for by ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-27 to 2026-10-27spend $0–990–99 impressions
In 2022, over 200,000 Republicans didn’t vote. Two statewide races were won by relatively thin margins. In 2024, 40,000 Republicans didn’t vote in CD2 and one State House race was determined by just 14 votes. I say this not just to motivate you to Get Out The Vote, but to say that your vote matters.
The legislation that happened after the 2022 election is directly responsible for the chaos we currently find our state in now. And now, you have the opportunity to fix it.
Vote early or vote on Election Day. Make a plan and GO VOTE! 🗳️🇺🇸
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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-26 to 2026-10-27spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Medicare for All. You’ve probably heard that phrase thrown around a lot over the last few months. My opponent has vied for this single payer “solution” to our health care system, but he accidentally slipped and said the quiet part out loud, "Medicare for All is not possible". Our current healthcare system is broken and certainly needs to be fixed. I think we can all agree on that.
But while I can agree with my opponent that the current system needs fixing, there are so many issues with Medicare for All that he was actually fact checked by local media. What they found is the very reason I disagree with his proposal:
1. He's using outdated figures to push his ideology by saying M4A will save families $3,000 annually.
FALSE: The AMA has never published any such study (links in comments).
2. He references other studies that also claim monetary savings and a decrease in patient lives lost.
Both have been debunked or discredited (links in comments).
3. While free health care for everyone sounds great, the price tag does not. The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of Medicare for All at $1.5-$3 trillion per year (almost half of what the US spent last year). Medicare for all would increase the US spending by ~50%.
4. My opponent also claims that the US has the lowest life expectancy of other developed nations. However, he doesn't account for causation versus correlation. Unfortunately, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are leading causes of death in America. Those are also medical conditions that have a proven reduced mortality rate with behavioral changes to their health choices. While our medical system does need to be overhauled to make preventative care more accessible, Medicare for All is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
5. According to the National Institute of Health, British studies have shown that their National Health Service (a similar version of Medicare for All) doesn’t automatically make everyone healthier. In fact, wealthier individuals were still healthier on average due to them not having sedentary life styles and the ability to use American hospitals.
Like I've said before, it is important that we can rely on our elected officials to tell us the truth. I encourage you to read the attached research article from The American Experiment as well as look into their linked articles. If we're going to fix something, we have to be honest about the real problems and then come up with real, achievable solutions.
Link to article: https://www.americanexperiment.org/candidates-need-a-little-help-on-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–99100–999 impressions
It’s Rally Week!
We’re just 9 days out from Election Day, and we’re hitting the road for Chat with Pratt every day this week, making stops all across CD2! If you have any questions before heading to the polls, come on out, grab a beverage, and join us.
We also have opportunities for door knocking and phone banking each day. Sign up to volunteer at www.ericprattmn.com.
It's go time. Let's win this!
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Matt Little won. Get what Matt Little 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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Campaigning can turn an otherwise normal life upside down for any candidate. Throughout the chaos and noise, I’m forever grateful to my wife Tina, our kids, and the support from the community through the relationships we’ve built. Whether it was while running for the Prior Lake-Savage School Board, the MN Senate, or Congress, I cannot be more thankful for the support and generosity each and every person has shown me. CD2 is our home, and I consider each of you our neighbors.
We're in the final stretch of this wild ride, be sure to hit the polls, and let's bring a win home!
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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–992,000–2,999 impressions
Seniors worked their entire lives to build a retirement. Government shouldn’t make it harder to keep it.
I spoke against Minnesota’s so-called “Granny Tax” because raising costs on nursing homes ultimately puts more pressure on the cost of caring for our seniors.
Let's think about the cycle for a moment. A senior living on a fixed income faces higher costs for care, burns through a lifetime of savings faster, and may eventually have to rely on Medicaid to pay for long-term care. That doesn’t make financial sense and it isn’t fair to seniors or taxpayers.
We should be working in the opposite direction and I argued against the DFL when they imposed these fees. That means controlling the costs of senior care, protecting Social Security for those who earned it, and ending the federal income tax on Social Security benefits so seniors can keep more of their own money.
Seniors paid into the system. They planned for retirement. Government shouldn’t tax their benefits while simultaneously making the care they need more expensive.
I voted against this increase in Minnesota. In Congress, I’ll keep fighting for a retirement system that respects the people who spent a lifetime earning it and care is affordable when they need it the most.
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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-20spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Next stop: Lonsdale!
Election Day is getting closer, and there's still plenty to talk about. Join me this week for Chat with Pratt to ask questions, share what's on your mind, and talk about what Minnesota needs from Washington.
Looking forward to seeing you there!
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 ERIC PRATT FOR MINNESOTA COMMITTEEfrom 2026-10-16spend $0–992,000–2,999 impressions
Minnesota families are tired of the finger-pointing, excuses, and political games in Washington. They want leaders who are ready to roll up their sleeves and get things done.
I've spent 30 years solving real-world problems, managing budgets, and delivering results. I've brought that same approach to public service, and I'll bring it to Congress.
You work hard for your money. Government should work just as hard to protect it.
That means cutting through the chaos, protecting taxpayer dollars, demanding accountability, and focusing on the issues that matter to Minnesota families, from affordability to public safety.
It's time to put Minnesota common sense to work in Washington.
Enough excuses. Time for accountability.
Bandwagon Appeal: Claims that Minnesota families collectively share one view, implying the view is correct because it is widely held. Flagged: “Minnesota families are tired of the finger-pointing, excuses, and political games in Washington”.
Loaded Language: Dismissive, emotionally charged terms frame Washington politics as petty and dishonest. Flagged: “finger-pointing, excuses, and political games”.
Glittering Generalities: Vague, positive phrases about leaders who 'get things done' carry no specific substance.
Slogans: Catchy phrase used to compress a complex position into an emotionally loaded shorthand.
Paid for by NATIONAL NURSES UNITED FOR PATIENT PROTECTIONfrom 2026-10-15spend $100–19910,000–14,999 impressions
Eric Pratt is rolling out the red carpet for Big Tech, voting to line the pockets of tech corporations with $300 million in tax breaks. And what do working families get? Higher bills and more pollution.
We need leaders in Congress who will put Minnesota families first. Matt Little will stand up to Big Tech and billionaires.
Vote Matt Little on November 3.
Loaded Language: Emotive idioms frame a tax vote as corrupt favoritism rather than describing it neutrally. Flagged: “rolling out the red carpet”.
Card Stacking: Asserts only negative outcomes for families with no evidence or acknowledgment of any other effects of the tax breaks. Flagged: “Higher bills and more pollution.”.
Glittering Generalities: Vague, positive-sounding pledge to 'put Minnesota families first' with no concrete policy content.
Paid for by NATIONAL NURSES UNITED FOR PATIENT PROTECTIONfrom 2026-10-15spend $600–69980,000–89,999 impressions
The affordability crisis is out of control, but Eric Pratt sides with the billionaires instead of you.
Matt Little is fighting for Medicare for All, a moratorium on data centers, and an end to billionaire tax breaks.
Vote to put Minnesotans before billionaires. Polls close November 3.
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged phrasing like 'out of control' frames the issue as a crisis to provoke alarm rather than convey facts.
Black-and-White Fallacy: Presents a binary choice between siding with billionaires or siding with ordinary people, ignoring any nuance in his position. Flagged: “sides with the billionaires instead of you”.
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 MN; or it ran mostly in MN 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.