2016 ElectionsReleases

Clinton Crushes Trump 3:1 in Air War

By November 3, 2016July 14th, 2017No Comments

Clinton also dominates local cable, which Trump has largely ignored
Over 3.3M airings in 2016 Cycle;

Nearly $600 million in ads for Senate races

November 3, 2016

1

Report Highlights

President
• Clinton crushes Trump 3:1 on air (Table 1)
• Presidential volume comparison from the last two weeks (Table A1)
• NEW: WMP reports local cable airings from 2016 and 2012 (Table 2)
• MAP: Large Clinton advantages on air persist in last two weeks (Figure 1)
• Clinton dominates top markets including Orlando, Tampa, Las Vegas (Table 3)
• MAP: Geographic comparison of presidential ad volumes from 2012 and 2016 (Figure 2)
• Bernie Sanders has aired more ads than Donald Trump (Table 4)
• 2016 pres general election ads have been more positive than 2012 (Figure 3)
• Clinton More, Trump Less Likely to Feature Opponent’s Voice in Ads in the Closing Weeks (Table 5)
• Issues in presidential ads have varied depending on ad sponsor (Table 6)

Cycle-to-Date 2016 Totals
• 3.3M in airings and an estimated $2.4B spent in total 2016 cycle (Table 7)
• Top outside group advertisers in 2015-2016 cycle (Table 18)

US Senate
• Volume over time (Figure 4); tone over time (Figure 5)
• Senate ads featuring presidential candidates (Table 8); and issues (Table 9)
• Top Senate races cycle-to-date (Table 10); last two weeks (Table 11)
• Least positive Senate races (Table 12)

US House
• Top House races cycle-to-date (Table 13); last two weeks (Table 14)
• Least positive House races (Table 15)

Governor
• Top Governors races – last two weeks (Table 16)
• Least positive Governors races (Table 17)

1
(MIDDLETOWN, CT) November 3, 2016 – As the 2016 general election comes to a close, presidential advertising is down dramatically from 2012 totals, and Hillary Clinton has held a crushing 3 to 1 advertising advantage over Trump in the period June 8 through October 30, 2016. In addition, for the first time ever in real-time, the Wesleyan Media Project is reporting information on local cable airings from NCC Media (which handles about 70 percent of local cable purchases), confirming that Clinton’s air war advantage is even larger than previously reported as Trump did not purchase a single local cable spot from Labor Day through October 30 through NCC Media (he did make a small purchase of just over 25,000 local cable airings over the summer).

1

“This ad imbalance is one of the stories of this presidential election,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Trump remains competitive despite being pummeled in the political ad air war. One might imagine that he would be doing even better, perhaps tipping some of the closer states to his column if his campaign were matching Clinton’s ad for ad. But that presumes ads are effective this campaign in moving opinion of either Trump or Clinton.”

1

Table 1 makes the comparison of each party’s ad efforts in the presidential election compared to the 2012 campaign. In the general election period in both 2012 and 2016 (defined in both cases as beginning on June 8), Clinton-sponsored ad totals are one-half of those by Obama; Trump-sponsored airings are roughly one-third of Romney’s. Trump falls further behind if ads by supportive groups and the parties are included. The entire pro-Trump effort has sponsored about 100,000 ads since early June. This is in comparison to nearly 500,000 for Mitt Romney in 2012.

1

Table 1: Presidential General Election Ad Volumes by Sponsor, 2012 & 2016

Click here for data from last two weeks

 2012
Pro-Obama
2016
Pro-Clinton
 2012
Pro-Romney
2016
Pro-Trump
Cand459,622231,241181,92468,805
Group55,89790,03264,33530,636
Party/Coord7,210475242,8830
Total522,729321,748489,14299,441
Figures are from June 8 to October 30 for each cycle.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

Clinton Also Dominating on Local Cable Advertising

The Clinton campaign is not only dominating local broadcast and national cable advertising, but also local cable advertising as well. Local cable advertising, which can be aired in smaller geographic areas (zones) than local broadcast ads, are attractive precisely because they can be more targeted, reaching smaller pockets of desirable neighborhoods or citizens more efficiently. According to NCC Media, which provided the Wesleyan Media Project with data on local cable airings, candidate spending on local cable is estimated to be roughly 20 percent of the total candidate presidential spending on advertising in 2016, a lower percentage than predicted in large part because the Trump campaign has been relatively absent on local cable so far.

The Clinton campaign has aired 332,817 ads since Labor Day on local cable, 54 percent more than the Obama campaign had run during the same period in 2012. This increase is in stark comparison to the broadcast totals noted above, where Clinton has put far fewer ads on television than Obama did.

1

“We’ve talked a lot this cycle about Clinton’s dominance relative to Trump on local broadcast and national cable air waves, but she has been even more dominant on local cable, airing nearly 330,000 ads to Trump’s zero,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “In 2012, Romney actually out-aired Obama on local cable by nearly 44,000 airings for the comparable post-Labor Day period, which makes the Trump campaign’s absence from local cable even more stunning.”

1

Table 2: Volume of Presidential Candidate Local Cable Airings, 2012 vs. 2016

  Local Cable Airings# of Markets% Increase
2012Obama216,36360
Romney260,21055
2016Clinton332,8175653.80%
Trump-0-100.00%
Figures are from 9/3-10/28/12 and 9/5-10/30/16.
Numbers include local cable only.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: NCC Media with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

The Clinton campaign has been heavily targeting Orlando (19,467 airings), Philadelphia (18,780 airings), and Las Vegas (18,380 airings) with Boston (16,577 airings) and Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville (16,285 airings) rounding out the top five target markets and she has been averaging 25 channels deep in many markets throughout the entire general election period targeting a variety of audiences. The Trump campaign purchased a small number of local cable spots over the summer (just over 25,000 airings), but has been absent from air in the post-Labor Day period. As of November 2, the Trump campaign has only booked local cable advertising for Colorado, Michigan and Nevada for the final few days prior to Election Day.

1

Pro-Clinton Airings Continue to Dominate Top Markets

Advertising by or on behalf of Clinton continued to dominate all of the top 20 media markets by overall volume over the last two weeks of October; the sole exception was Denver, Colorado where Trump had a 709 ad lead. Trump also maintained advantages in Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan and Erie, Pennsylvania. Pro-Clinton ads also outnumber pro-Trump airings on national cable by 2,620 to 922, a difference of 1,698 airings.

1

“Instead of focusing all of his advertising in the true battleground states, Trump is advertising in several states that lean toward Clinton. His campaign realizes that they are going to need to win one of those ‘lean Democratic’ states, such as Colorado or Wisconsin, in order to have a path to victory.” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

1

Figure 1: Democratic Ad Advantage in Presidential Race (Oct 14-Oct 30 )

2016release7_adadv
Download a csv of the underlying data
1

Despite Trump’s recent efforts in some of these battlegrounds, across all top media markets since the beginning of the general election in June, Clinton has aired at least 64 percent of the ads in the top 20 media markets, as shown in Table 3.

1

Table 3: Top Media Markets in Presidential Race (General Election)

Media MarketDem AdsRep AdsTotal AdsEst Cost
(in Millions)
% Dem Ads
Orlando17,7104,38622,09627.780.2%
Tampa16,6684,96321,63122.177.1%
Las Vegas14,4692,42016,88912.385.7%
Charlotte13,1553,28216,43712.880.0%
National Cable13,7882,17115,95939.586.4%
West Palm Beach11,6333,19314,8268.978.5%
Cleveland10,6454,02714,67214.572.6%
Columbus, Ohio9,8523,78413,63610.172.2%
Greensboro10,2893,06413,3534.777.1%
Raleigh9,8872,89212,7798.477.4%
Philadelphia9,8042,67912,48313.478.5%
Reno9,8812,46712,3485.880.0%
Cincinnati8,5293,26511,7946.072.3%
Jacksonville8,4892,88411,3734.174.6%
Pittsburgh7,4632,93510,3989.071.8%
Dayton7,9832,06010,0434.879.5%
Des Moines8,7019419,6424.690.2%
Denver6,0373,2929,3298.564.7%
Toledo7,5321,7199,2514.181.4%
Harrisburg6,4552,7249,1794.570.3%
Cedar Rapids7,6211,0908,7113.487.5%
Ft. Myers7,2611,2958,5563.184.9%
Figures are from June 8, 2016 to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1


Figure 2 looks at the ad volumes in the general election periods of the 2012 and 2016 presidential races. Top markets from 2012 have seen declines in presidential advertising this cycle. For example, Denver, Las Vegas, Cleveland, and Tampa have all seen fewer ads in 2016. At the same time, the spread of states with at least modest levels of ad buys has expanded. Only about 16 states have seen minimal advertising (fewer than 50 presidential ads) on broadcast television in 2016.

1

Figure 2: Presidential Ad Volumes in 2016 and 2012

2016release7_vol
1

Sanders’ Ad Volume Still Tops Donald Trump’s Cycle-to-Date


Table 4 outlines the top advertisers in the presidential election since the beginning of the cycle in 2015. Hillary Clinton tops the list, having spent over $219 million on television ads. Her primary election opponent, Bernie Sanders, remains in the second spot, having spent over $75 million in his bid to be the Democratic nominee. Interestingly, ads sponsored by Sanders still outnumber ads sponsored by Trump (128,000 to 101,000), even when including Trump’s primary election ad buys.

1

Table 4: Top Advertisers in the Presidential Campaign

SponsorAdsEst. Cost
(in Millions)
Clinton, Hillary340,745219.3
Sanders, Bernie128,49476
Trump, Donald101,84976.6
Priorities USA Action76,96575.3
Right To Rise USA35,55862.2
Cruz, Ted30,26216.8
Conservative Solutions PAC30,16950.9
Rubio, Marco24,07614.2
Carson, Ben12,1194.3
Rebuilding America Now PAC11,10710.2
NextGen California Action Committee10,43711.4
Stand For Truth, Inc10,3309.2
NRA Institute For Legislative Action9,2369.4
Kasich, John8,2973.5
Our Principles PAC7,0008.4
Figures are from January 1, 2015, to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

2016 Presidential General Election More Positive Than 2012

Figure 3 shows trends in negativity for general election presidential advertising (defined as June 8 through Oct 30 of each year). Despite the ugly nature of the 2016 cycle, the tone of political advertising is considerably more positive than the 2012 campaign. Still, over 50 percent of presidential ads this cycle have been negative, and 25 percent have been contrast ads—ads that both promote the sponsor and attack the opponent.

1

“There are many possible reasons for the slight decline in advertising negativity this cycle,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “But I think that the bruising nature of the news and the high unfavorable ratings for both candidates have led the campaigns to pursue slightly more positive tactics in advertising than they otherwise might have done.”

1

Figure 3: Tone of Presidential General Election Advertising

See this in a table
Click here for data from last two weeks

2016release7_fig_prestone

1

In the last two weeks since our last release (Oct 14-Oct 30), pure attacks in presidential advertising comprised just 41 percent of airings, which is substantially lower than the last three presidential cycles, all of which saw more than 60 percent pure attack ads for the same period. Contrast ads, though, have been much more common during the past few weeks than in any of the previous four presidential cycles (43 percent compared to 35 percent in 2000, 21 percent for 2004 and 2012 and 17 percent in 2008).


1

Clinton More, Trump Less Likely to Feature Opponent’s Voice in Closing Weeks

As shown in Table 5, over 3 out of every 4 Clinton-sponsored pure attack ads have featured Trump’s voice. Trump’s attacks have featured Clinton’s voice less often in just under half of all airings during the traditional general election period (from Labor Day through October 30). In the final weeks, the two campaigns are taking different tactics with the Clinton campaign solely airing attack ads featuring Trump’s voice and the Trump campaign only featuring Clinton in one out of every 10 negative spots.

1

Table 5: Opponent’s Voice in Presidential Candidate-Sponsored Attacks

  % of Trump% of Clinton
Opponent's voice9/5-10/3046.4%76.9%
10/14-10/3010.2%100.0%
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

Groups, Candidates Differ on Top Issues

Presidential ads over the last two weeks have varied in their issue focus depending upon the sponsor. While Clinton has been emphasizing women’s rights, Iraq, education, public safety and jobs; outside groups working on her behalf (largely Priorities USA Action) have hit immigration, followed by education, minority rights and public safety. Trump has focused on taxes, terrorism, jobs/unemployment and Benghazi. His supporting groups have focused on gun control (given the NRA’s heavy involvement), followed by the Supreme Court, Benghazi, abortion and corruption.

1

Table 6: Top Issues in Presidential Race by Sponsor

ClintonPro-Clinton GroupsTrumpPro-Trump Groups
Women's RightsImmigrationTaxesGun Control
IraqEducationTerrorismSupreme Court
EducationLGBTQ RightsJobsBenghazi
Public SafetyWomen's RightsUnemploymentAbortion
JobsPublic SafetyBenghaziCorruption
Figures are from October 14, 2016 to October 30, 2016. 
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

3.3M Airings in 2016 Cycle; Estimated $2.4B Spent

The total cost for ads aired cycle-to-date on broadcast stations across the country has passed $2.3 billion for races up and down the ballot. In the presidential election, including the primary and general election phases of the campaign, candidates and supportive organizations have aired over 900,000 ads costing over $750 million. Senate spending is double that of ads for House races, coming in at just under $600 million. Over $400 million has been spent on 350,000 ads advocating for or against ballot measures across the country. These totals are shown in Table 7.

1

Table 7: Ad Spending in 2016 Cycle

RaceEst Cost
(in Millions)
Ads
President760.9920,070
Senate593.3790,226
House276.6507,983
Ballot Measures406.0354,306
Governor155.0417,437
All other races159.6340,954
 Total2,351.53,330,976
Figures are from January 1, 2015, to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the
Wesleyan Media Project.
1

2016 Senate ads match 2010 totals; Comparable in tone to last three cycles

The volume of Senate ad airings is up slightly (4 percent) compared to the last time these particular seats were contested in 2010, and up 20 percent over 2012 Senate contests. Ad totals are down nearly 19 percent from 2014 Senate totals. These totals count ads from January 1 of the prior year to October 30 of the election year.*

1

Figure 4: Volume of Senate Advertising by Cycle

2016release7_fig_senairings
1


As shown in Figure 5, unlike the anomalous 2016 presidential race, the tone of senatorial advertising in 2016 has been very consistent with prior cycles. Rates of negativity in all four cycles hover at around 50 percent pure attack and nearly 75 percent attack and contrast. Through October 30, the 2016 cycle ranks second in negativity, with 53 percent pure attack (compared to 54 percent in 2012) and 73 percent attack and contrast (compared to 75 percent in 2012).

1

Figure 5: Tone of Senatorial General Election Advertising

2016release7_fig_senatetone
1

Senate Advertising Features
Presidential Candidates

References to presidential candidates and President Obama in Senate advertising vary by party. Pro-Republican airings have negatively referenced Clinton slightly more often than Obama (nearly 14 compared to just over 12 percent) while pro-Democratic airings have negatively referenced Trump less often in just over 4 percent of all airings. In comparison, in 2008 (the last presidential election without an incumbent running), pro-Republican senate ads negatively referenced Obama in 4 percent of all airings and zero percent of pro-Democratic airings negatively referenced McCain.

Ads by or on behalf of Democratic senatorial candidates have also taken a page from Clinton’s playbook by featuring Trump’s voice in nearly 4 percent of their airings and a direct Trump quote (in text on screen or spoken by someone else) in just over 1 percent of airings.

1

Table 8: References in Senate Ads (Sept 5 – Oct 30)

 Pro-DemPro-Rep
Neg Obama Mention0.0%12.4%
Neg Clinton Mention0%13.7%
Clinton Voice0%1%
Clinton Quote0%0%
Neg Trump Mention4%0%
Trump Voice4%0%
Trump Quote1%0%
Figures are from Sept 5, 2016 - Oct 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with
analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

The Wesleyan Media Project also coded for specific words that appeared in Senate advertising in the period from Labor Day through October 30. Ads by or on behalf of Democratic Senate candidates were most likely to mention special interests (10 percent of airings) followed by Wall Street (10 percent) and Planned Parenthood (5.5 percent). Pro-Republican airings by contrast were most likely to mention liberal (nearly 13 percent of airings), followed by Obamacare (nearly 11 percent) and Wall Street (nearly 6 percent).

1

Table 9: Word Mentions by Party in Senate Ads (Sept 5 – Oct 30)

 Pro-DemPro-Rep
Change4%0%
Liberal0%13%
Conservative1%4%
Special Interests10%4%
Dirty/Negative Campaigner0%1%
Working Class2%1%
Middle Class5%2%
Upper Class/Rich/Wealthy1%1%
Wall Street10%5%
Big Gov't0%2%
Obamacare1%11%
Planned Parenthood6%0%
Out-of-State Money0%1%
Millionaire/Billionaire1%0%
Rigged1%1%
Figures are from Sept 5, 2016 - Oct 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with
analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

PA race tops Senate airings; over $100 million in ads alone

The top Senate race for ads aired this cycle is Pennsylvania, with over $100 million spent on ads cycle-to-date. New Hampshire is ninth on the list in terms of ads aired, but second in terms of cost, with over $90 million in ads for the race between Democrat Maggie Hassan and incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte (includes primary election spending). Eight Senate races have seen at least $30 million in spending on broadcast ads. Spending on ads in all Senate races this cycle is outlined in Table 10.

1

Table 10: Top US Senate Races Cycle-to-Date

StateAiringsEst. Cost
(in Ms)
PA111,405102.3
OH78,07456.8
IN75,84738.2
NV68,86045.6
WI58,78430.6
FL56,71345.3
MO55,10833.4
NC53,62426.7
NH48,16693.4
IL24,31323.2
AZ20,02314.3
CO18,85612.0
LA17,7828.5
GA13,9036.9
MD12,73213.7
CA11,88811.9
AL11,4126.8
KY10,1773.7
IA8,8864.0
AR5,7352.0
NY5,0764.2
ID4,0460.7
OR3,7602.0
WA3,4362.7
KS2,5050.9
CT2,2331.5
AK2,1570.5
ND1,5290.4
SC1,4470.4
VT6830.2
HI5450.2
UT2690.1
OK2520.1
Figures are from January 1, 2015 to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national
network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG
with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

Table 11 looks at spending in Senate races since our last release, covering the October 14 to October 30 period. North Carolina has seen the most ads in these two weeks, with over 26,000 ads. Democratic and Republican outside groups are clearly invested in Senate races; many have aired more ads than the candidates they support. For example, pro-Democratic groups have aired more ads than the candidate in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Nevada, and New Hampshire. The same is true on the Republican side for Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

1

Table 11: Ad Volume and Spending in US Senate Races (Oct 14-Oct 30 )

Click here for data since Labor Day

StateAiringsEst. Cost
(in Ms)
Dem Adv.Dem CandPro-Dem
Party/
Coord
Pro-Dem
Grp
Rep CandPro-Rep
Party/
Coord
Pro-Rep
Grp
NC26,83611.110,0344,9108,5434,9824,8423283,231
PA21,09615.04,7784,3063,4685,1633,8282004,131
IN19,74110.63,5434,5872,9574,0982,6911,4693,939
MO19,18910.62,3412,4774,3383,9503,6447704,010
NV13,6739.02,4591,8272,8033,4361,2985553,754
FL12,9097.3-6,3432,96703166,37903,247
WI12,0605.19323,6542,3804623,19802,366
NH11,27119.53,1551,9913,0052,2171,896402,122
LA7,6143.7-3,6261,9570374,17801,442
IL4,8133.82,2993,55600214420623
OH4,8052.6-3,261772003,7910242
KY3,8071.37991,9160387933302269
NY3,4293.63,4293,42900000
GA3,3201.6-3,3200002,9140406
AZ3,0981.5-7541,172001,92600
CO2,5271.1-651,231009870309
IA2,0380.5-2,0304002,03400
CA2,0353.12,0351,3610674000
AR1,9840.6-464760001,22400
OR1,8931.01,8931,89300000
ID1,8240.3-1,8202001,82200
WA1,7701.31,7701,77000000
SC1,4470.4-1,4470001,44700
KS1,1890.3-1,1890001,18900
CT8920.589289200000
MD7550.575575500000
ND5700.1-57000057000
AK4940.1-49400049400
HI3370.133733700000
UT2690.1-26900026900
OK2520.1-25200025200
VT2510.0425125100000
Figures are from October 14, 2016 to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
*Two Democrats are competing against each other in California’s Senate general election.
1

North Carolina tops the list of least positive US Senate races, with just 8 percent of ads being positive. Nevada ranks second with 11 percent of ads purely positive and the highest number of pure attack ads (79 percent). Indiana is the third least positive at 14 percent.

1

Table 12: Least Positive Senate Races (Sept 1 – Oct 30)

StateAiringsNeg%Con%Pos%
NC51,13065%27%8%
NV42,40679%10%11%
IN50,34973%13%14%
PA58,98763%21%16%
FL35,09462%22%16%
MO45,83765%17%18%
NH30,47669%10%21%
IL13,09828%48%24%
AZ11,21126%49%25%
WI28,01648%24%27%
OH19,37440%15%45%
GA8,3250%53%47%
AR5,1048%42%49%
KY8,19130%18%52%
LA17,08415%23%62%
IA5,6262%35%63%
CO4,8990%28%72%
AK1,1840%3%97%
Figures are from September 1 to October 30, 2016 and may include
some primary advertising activity.
All other senate contest have 100 percent positive promotional spots.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis
by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

Maine Tops the List for House races

The second district of Maine is one of the most competitive House races this cycle, and it tops the list for ad buys with over 21,000 ads costing $7 million cycle-to-date. Top ad totals in House races are outlined in Table 13. The differential cost of ads across media markets is apparent in the table, with MN-8 seeing about 6,000 fewer ads than ME-2, but those ads have cost about $5.5 million more.

1

Table 13: Top US House Races Cycle-to-Date

DistrictAiringsEst. Cost
(in Ms)
ME0221,7867.1
CA2419,6963.0
NY2219,5443.7
MT0118,4511.9
FL1815,9177.7
MN0815,10412.7
NY2412,4413.0
TX2311,6788.4
IA0110,8693.6
NY1910,7843.9
NE0210,6774.1
IA0310,4484.0
NV039,6868.1
NV049,6786.9
WI089,3652.8
KS019,2012.9
IN099,1615.3
AZ028,2962.9
CO068,2356.9
CA497,9123.6
PA087,2938.8
CA217,2732.3
MI077,0592.1
FL197,0093.1
MN026,7835.9
MN036,6455.4
FL266,5916.7
TN086,5012.9
MD086,25013.1
CA076,1383.8
IL106,09312.6
VA106,03911.3
Figures are from January 1, 2015 to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with
analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1


Maine’s 2nd district has also seen the most airings with nearly 8,500 ads in the last two weeks alone. Democratic challenger Emily Cain held a 786 ad airing advantage (thanks to outside group and party/coordinated airings) over incumbent Republican Bruce Poliquin. Montana’s first district (6,628 airings) and Texas’ 23rd district (5,798 airings) rounded out the top three.

1

Table 14: Ad Volume and Spending in Top US House Races (Oct 14-Oct 30)

Click here for data since Labor Day

DistrictAiringsEst. Cost
(in Ms)
Dem Adv.Dem CandPro-Dem
Party/
Coord
Pro-Dem
Grp
Rep CandPro-Rep
Party/
Coord
Pro-Rep
Grp
ME028,4922.77861,1971,7911,6511,8001,468585
MT016,6280.77123,35703132,95800
TX235,7984.41,4745552,150931713954495
MN084,8194.71,3518041,814467490631,181
FL184,7612.51172,439002421,144936
NY194,7501.7-4868971,23506411,261716
CA494,3932.21,38902,4684231,50200
NY224,3890.91,6435409641,5122821,0910
NY244,3251.117701,879372744548782
CA214,2221.5-148002,0371,8690316
CO063,87734252721,6662134441,147135
IA033,8261.5-2941371,6290487614959
IN093,8072.1-395852188361,28173090
CA103,7402.56441062,08608580690
NV033,5823.3-22417572278205281,375
VA103,5406.859009951,070361356758
IA013,5161.1402686874399647659251
FL263,4763.5-156283846531255906655
NE023,2701.340843577235452801362
CA243,1650.5791,23803848217220
CA072,9622.1-16316913244821,116291
IL102,9085.728401,1824146596530
MN022,8852.489979990119249890
CO032,8631.5-82354104791,1180725
ME028,4922.77861,1971,7911,6511,8001,468585
MT016,6280.77123,35703132,95800
TX235,7984.41,4745552,150931713954495
MN084,8194.71,3518041,814467490631,181
FL184,7612.51172,439002421,144936
NY194,7501.7-4868971,23506411,261716
CA494,3932.21,38902,4684231,50200
Figures are from October 14, 2016 to October 30, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1