TV ads generally don't work. What I mean by that is they're a sort of must-do in that the groupthink says you need them, so all candidates runs them. Because of that, it's mainly just campaign inflation. Assuming two candidates are spending (roughly) equivalent amounts of money on ads, there isn't likely going to be any net benefit for one candidate or another among the swing crowds.
If, however, one side is drastically out-spending the other, then they are more likely to produce benefit for that candidate. Unfortunately, we can't compare and contrast alternate scenarios and so we'll never know what the situation would have definitely looked like without Clinton spending gobs on them...but if I had to go with my gut, then I'd say that she'd probably be doing even worse right now.
I imagine Clinton's consistent numbers in
some of the states (PA, NH, FL, NC) that she's run ads in, even as the nation as swung back and forth, could be due to the constant advantage.
Poll
