It's hard to know how sophisticated the actual targeted emails are. The PP analysis likely didn't capture the whole universe of emails received (because it was mostly from their readership)...and the skeptical part of me wonders: how sophisticated are campaigns at this, really?
For one thing, a limiting factor is how much they are willing to spend to tailor a large variance of emails. I guess from the limited knowledge I have of campaign internals and campaign writers, knowing how to work a binary decision tree would be a rare skill. Of course they might have a program that abstracts this process, but you still have the core issue of writing an intelligible email that remains intelligible (and won't be an inadvertent embarrassment) across all variances.
Also, I wonder if open-rates have a stronger effect on the email format than any other kind of personal information, other than gender, age, geography, and donation history.
--
I have no doubt that campaigns think they are very sophisticated, especially compared to what they had in the last cycle four years ago. I'm talking about sophistication as it compares to what Facebook and Google have. That's an unfair bar here but c'mon, that's what we should be comparing against in the big picture.