Has the Clinton Post-Convention Air War Been a Failure?

[NOVA Green]

The Clinton campaign and related super-PACs has completely dominated the Air War by any objective measurement, from the ratio of ad expenditures, the duration of ads within swing states/markets, and number of states in which ads have been aired.

The main focus of most of these ads has been portraying a narrative of Trump lacking the judgement, temperament, and character to be President, including ads focusing on his various comments regarding women, disabled, ethnic minorities, military veterans and families, etc....

Despite this massive ad bombardment since the DNC, movement in many swing state polling has shifted towards Trump, with no real gain for Clinton's total top margins.

Has the Clinton Air War been a failure and focusing on driving up Trump's already extremely low unfavorables been a strategic mistake that has diverted a huge amount of resources and media focus with no real benefits during a critical stretch of the election?

[Maxwell]

I think she shouldn't have invested as much on the air - but I don't think it's because her ads are ineffective. Her ads seem to be okay - but the problem is twofold:

1. People get so much of their news right away now that ads are losing effectiveness
2. Trump makes up for a lack of ads by making shocking statements and thus getting just as much if not a lot more coverage than Clinton does even with her ads.

for now, I'll say it's a somewhat failure.

[Virginiá]

I'm not sure. If we could re-run the past 2 months with Clinton only matching Trump's investment in ads, maybe we could tell. There is only so much ads can do when the 2 candidates are already so well-defined.

Is there anyway to tell how much money she is putting into her ground game? Given how lopsided the ad spending is, she really should be exceeding Obama's investments and also investing heavily in Hispanic outreach. This is a perfect election to engage them in.

[Likely Voter]

well there is no way of knowing. Would the race look different if they didn't spend a dime? Would Trump be winning if he had matched them? 

But my guess is that it is working with the group they most wanted to target, college whites, especially suburban middle aged whites. They continue to be a huge weakness for Trump, both men and women in that group. But the reason the race continues to be closer than they would like it to be is millennials, who are split 3 ways between herself, Trump and 3rd party candidates. That is where she is most underperforming Obama, and TV ads isn't really working with them, especially local advertising.  But then again, they probably know that and are instead focusing on online and social media to get to millennials, but so far that isn't working.

[elcorazon]

I think she shouldn't have invested as much on the air - but I don't think it's because her ads are ineffective. Her ads seem to be okay - but the problem is twofold:

1. People get so much of their news right away now that ads are losing effectiveness
2. Trump makes up for a lack of ads by making shocking statements and thus getting just as much if not a lot more coverage than Clinton does even with her ads.

I agree with this but I say maybe maybe not. If she can now convince the public she's actually worth voting FOR. Get some positive message out - and people are so convinced (properly) Trump is a menace - perhaps the blowout many hoped for/expected will come to pass.  Jury's out. I worry it's too late as people have already cemented in the anti-Hillary & Anti-Trump camp.

[Ebsy]

Ads don't really effect the race like most people on Atlas seem to think they do. They're more to lock in voter opinion than change minds.

[NOVA Green]

I think she shouldn't have invested as much on the air - but I don't think it's because her ads are ineffective. Her ads seem to be okay - but the problem is twofold:

1. People get so much of their news right away now that ads are losing effectiveness
2. Trump makes up for a lack of ads by making shocking statements and thus getting just as much if not a lot more coverage than Clinton does even with her ads.

I agree with this but I say maybe maybe not. If she can now convince the public she's actually worth voting FOR. Get some positive message out - and people are so convinced (properly) Trump is a menace - perhaps the blowout many hoped for/expected will come to pass.  Jury's out. I worry it's too late as people have already cemented in the anti-Hillary & Anti-Trump camp.

The positive/negative ad ratio is certainly striking, but even more fundamentally for me is the lack of a strategically coherent campaign message.

There are certain themes and messaging that plays stronger within certain demographics and different regions of the country.

1.) Why aren't there targeted compare/contrast ads in Ohio for example focusing on the jobs message, support for increasing the minimum wage, etc....?

2.) Have there been any Spanish language ad buys in Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina on local Spanish language stations stressing a positive message on jobs, education, and health care coverage?

3.) Have there been any ads tying Trump to a Republican congressional agenda to privatize Social Security in Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio for example?

It doesn't appear to me that Team Clinton has really been focusing on an Air War strategy that appeals to traditional swing voters in traditional swing states.

[NOVA Green]

Bump....

So at this point it looks like the vast majority say that the Clinton Air War has been a failure, or best case an even-Steven....

For late viewers, votes?

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Gass3268]

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.

[KingSweden]

I actually think with all the free airtime Trump gets she'd be doing worse. It's hard to say, really

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3. I think it would have been more successful if she didn't overdo it. People tune her ads out now because they've been seeing them for months. A Trump ad gets people, even the Hillary supporters in my life, excited just because it is almost a novelty.

[Gass3268]

Option 3. I think it would have been more successful if she didn't overdo it. People tune her ads out now because they've been seeing them for months. A Trump ad gets people, even the Hillary supporters in my life, excited just because it is almost a novelty.

Even though from a totally objective measure, the Trump ads seem pretty lame.

[elcorazon]

Option 3. I think it would have been more successful if she didn't overdo it. People tune her ads out now because they've been seeing them for months. A Trump ad gets people, even the Hillary supporters in my life, excited just because it is almost a novelty.

some truth to this I think.

[Virginiá]

Option 3. I think it would have been more successful if she didn't overdo it. People tune her ads out now because they've been seeing them for months. A Trump ad gets people, even the Hillary supporters in my life, excited just because it is almost a novelty.

Even though from a totally objective measure, the Trump ads seem pretty lame.

His first GE ad was terrible. Aside from lying about Clinton's immigration policy (didn't she explicitly say criminals would be deported?), it was incredibly simplistic (this is some of what it said):

Donald Trump's America is secure.
Terrorists kept out.
The border secure.
Our families safe.

Seriously? Not only is the ad really dumbed down, but how exactly does Trump getting elected suddenly keep all terrorists out and all families safe? What does that even mean? It's like this is an ad for elementary school kids.

Clinton's ads seem far more effective, particularly the anti-Trump ads.

Compare Trump's 2 Americas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mKzYPt0Bu4

vs

Clinton's "Mirrors": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHGPbl-werw

What is most amusing to me is how Trump has given her campaign unprecedented amounts of material to work with.

[NOVA Green]

Bump....

Looks like Clinton's failure to run key ads focused on jobs & the economy in the MidWest and PA, ads focused on protecting retirees and defending Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid and instead key drilling into Trump as a personality, and his judgement, temperament, and experience, was a tone deaf argument at a time when many Americans, including most significant WWC voters of whom many had Obama in either/or/both in '12 and '16 swung heavily towards Trump.

The Clinton Air-Wars were an absolute failure, and exclusively focused on increasing margins among a narrow slice of the electorate, instead of doing what Democrats should always do which is compare and contrast on bread  & butter issues with the Republican candidate, for ALL working and Lower-Middle Class Americans....

[Shadows]

Enormous failure - Wasted money - Sad!

She should have focused more on a positive message - Minimum Wage, Climate Change, etc rather than hammering Trump about personality & temperament! 

[Beet]

Impossible to say the impact of the Air War since we have no hard data. For all we know it could have been incredibly effective.

[Lothal1]

When every ad is "would your kid(s) support Trump" or "Donald said this about this group", you are bound to lose.

[Ljube]

Enormous failure - Wasted money - Sad!

She should have focused more on a positive message - Minimum Wage, Climate Change, etc rather than hammering Trump about personality & temperament! 

[NOVA Green]

Enormous failure - Wasted money - Sad!

She should have focused more on a positive message - Minimum Wage, Climate Change, etc rather than hammering Trump about personality & temperament! 

So @ Shadows and Ljube.... more like an optimistic message like Michelle O. "When they do low we go high"?

It is true that it didn't seem like Clinton started running the "warm fuzzy" type ads until the last four weeks or so of the campaign, and it was around that time her national fav/unfav numbers started to pick up.

Still not convinced min wage and clime change as themes would have been sufficient, because both are more likely to appeal to White Millennial voters, that might have helped her cross the line in PA and MI, and possibly WI, but would it have helped increase turnout among AA voters in Philly, Detroit, and Milwaukie to make the difference?

Regardless, it seems clear that going with a National strategy and not playing and running with themes important to key Democratic constituencies, for example Seniors and White Union voters in the "Rust Belt" likely cost her the election, regardless of trying to recreate the Obama Coalition by targeting college-educated Whites and "Minority Voters" (Latinos, African, and Asian-Americans) that are much more heavily concentrated in either Deep Red or Deep Blue States, rather than in the traditional swing-states of the Midwest/ PA.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

FWIW, I think my theory about Clinton overusing her ammunition is what allowed Trump to become Teflon Don. She beat and forced her ads on us so much that we began tuning all of them out. I think that is a major mistake to learn from for all campaigns in the future. It's like over-watering a garden.

[RaphaelDLG]

Ads only work if the message is sharp and the messenger isn't tone-deaf/unpalatable