What's the evidence that ads help major party candidates for the Presidency in early states? What's the evidence that you need alot of money--as opposed to, say, a few million--to win a primary?

I ask seriously. And my guess is this is sort of like Moneyball; a leftover habit that isn't quite true.

My guess is that the rare ad campaign makes a difference, but the majority of ad campaigns are primarily important for how "serious" they show the candidate to be to the MSM; in other words, you raise early money to "pay" for MSM "earned" coverage. Am I wrong? What's the evidence? If "Just Say No To Drugs" INCREASED drug use, why shouldn't we think that Romney ads might turn off Romney voters? Focus groups, as any political scientist knows, are not a good way to predict quantitative impact.

How does the internet fit into all this? My guess is that it exarcerbates the existing trend away from advertising mattering, as people are more likely to tune out ads, and more likely to get information about a candidate (that they might once have been thirsty for) from internet news sources and candidate sites. In the 70's-90's, advertising was a welcome additional font of information, even if confusing. Now it no longer plays ANY positive or needed role, it has become not only irritating, but less likely to impact.

In other words, the "x doesn't have the money to win," might be an irresponsible meme; factually false. Of course, the money necessary for organizing is probably essential, but that's peanuts compared to the money spent on spots.

Now, you might argue that money is only necessary for big states, but if there are only two or three candidates left by Feb. 5, do you really think that ads will be more important than the coverage of the "match of the titans," whoever they may be?

In 2003, Mathew Dowd said "''I've never seen advertising have an impact in any early states." In a series of articles that I read once--and can't find--various political scientists have argued that money matters for advertising IF you're unknown, but not if you are known.

But I'm open to evidence. From the reality-based community out there, is "big money=necessary to win" a false story? If so, its a dangerous one, for it puts the reporters who adopt it in the position of imposing a money barrier where one doesn't exist.

Here, I'll start the research role myself:

Paper studying impact of Gore/Bush ads on broad sample in 2000. Most surprising finding: exposure to ads by unengaged voters led to more indecision, not less.