Sadly, they are effective. Not everyone reads the paper or watches the news enough to stay current on all the issues. So advertising on the radio or during entertainment television helps candidates reach people who otherwise would not hear their message.

On the reverse side, attack ads work far too well. They spread misinformation or exaggerated versions of a candidate's positions and help associate a candidate with a particular fear people have. McCain's recent Olympic ads about how Obama's going to tax the middle class are a great example. Some people that were on the fence about Obama but are having a hard time with the economy might be persuaded just on that ad.

yes. how do you think obama got so popular? his socialist views??

please, voters are smarter than that.

Sanders and Norris claim, "using panel survey data alone, it is almost impossible to establish a causal relationship between exposure to PEBs and changes in voters’ party images." (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/ACROBAT/peb.pdf)

Negative ads are effective in that they provoke dissension, discourage many from participating out of frustration, and persuade only the most impressionable groups.

Although "it is difficult to isolate the impact of political advertising" (Thorson et al., "Effects of Issue and Image Strategies, Attack and Support Appeals, Music, and Visual Content in Political Commercials," 483. ) and perceived truth corresponds to attitudes toward the sponsor, "negative political advertising that identifies the sponsor and the target hurts both candidates" (www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm).

If noting else, think of the children: "...after viewing an ad that attacked their favored candidate, about 14 percent of the voters 'dug in their heels' and indicated stronger support... 14 percent of the young voters--after viewing an ad that attacked their preferred candidate--were influenced by the ad's content and weakened their support..." (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212122046.htm)

Positive/neutral ads are effective in that they get out the name of the candidate and provide fodder for the mass media, ornery critics, and web 2.0 tools.... like CD.

Of course television/internet/radio commercials are effective in a presidential campaign. Since the first televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960, the mere appearance of a presidential candidate has become inadvertently an important factor to the public's perception of that person regardless of their political views.

As twenty-four hour news networks, news websites, web networks, and YouTube have evolved into the dominant information sources for many American's to gain insight into the candidates, the importance of visual media advertisement has increased, as reflected by the amount of financial and personnel investment, exponentially in any political campaign.

The television ad in particular is an easy way to guarantee a candidate that a large majority in any given district will at least hear or see their positions on relevant issues or be made aware of questionable legislation or controversies that might cast their opponent in a negative light.

As far as being effective in the sense of gathering votes for a certain candidate, yes, these ads are very effective. As far as giving the average American voter a well-rounded and knowledgeable grasp of the issues and a candidate's position (and thus increasing the strength of our democracy,) no these ads are not so effective.