I do not believe that - in a presidential campaign (emphasis - presidential) - political TV/Internet/radio commercials are effective. Here is why...

The effectiveness of political commercials is inversely proportional to the profile of the office being sought.

Political commercials, of any variety, are more effective, when the campaign is low profile. They are primarily useful in getting a candidate known, when he/she is unknown. Downballot races are ones in which the typical voter has not even heard of one or both of the major-party candidates. So if that voter has seen an ad - even if it isn't a very good ad - it promotes name recognition.

Which brings us back to why I believe that they aren't effective in presidential races.

Presidential elections - due to the paramount significance of the office - generate enormous amounts of what political professionals describe as "free media" coverage - i.e., coverage for which a campaign does not need to pay.

It is safe to say that due to the ubiquitous coverage of the campaign, every voter on November 4 will have not only heard of both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, but can express some basic, meaningful opinion on the merits of each candidate. (Of course, many Americans do not pay any attention to politics at all, but by definition, if an American does not pay any attention to politics, he/she is unlikely to be interested in casting a ballot, even in presidential years. Ironically, those voters would be the most easily influenced by an advertisement - but odds are, they won't be voting.)

(Since I had to select one side or the other for this argument, I added it to Smith's side. However, as you can see from this piece, it's not really an argument to persuade you one way or another. It's just my analysis of the political environment...)

The most significant obstacle for Smith is the unpopular national Republican "brand”, particularly in a state which has supported Democratic presidential candidates for the last two decades.

Smith first won election to the U.S. Senate, by running far ahead of the Republican nominee, Bob Dole, in 1996. The easy victory by Democratic President Bill Clinton in Oregon did not prevent Smith from capturing an open seat. The key question is whether Smith can achieve a similar feat, a dozen years later. He must contend with the long coattails of Barack Obama.

According to Pollster.com, Obama enjoys a wide lead in the state over John McCain.

Oregon, although no Republican presidential candidate has carried it since 1984, had been considered a de facto swing state in both 2000 and 2004; George W. Bush came within 0.5% of carrying it in 2000 and within 4.16% four years later.

But Obama’s lead in the state is considerably wider than the Democratic victories earlier this decade. In contrast, it seems most comparable to the victory margin of Clinton over Dole in 1996, which was about 8%. The latest polls show Obama with a consistent high single-digit lead over McCain in Oregon. Interestingly, in late 2007, Obama was in a statistical tie with McCain. However, as Obama gathered momentum through primary and caucus victories throughout the winter and spring of 2008, he pulled away from McCain to the margin which he currently enjoys.

The outcome between Smith’s two dueling Senate colleagues at the top of the ticket may very well determine his own fate. He overcame the Democratic coattails a dozen years ago - can he do it once more this time?