Hillary Clinton has endured fewer TV attack ads so far in the 2016 campaign than Marco Rubio.

That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained, paid opposition on television.


Donald Trump began buying his first TV ads late last week, a nearly $5 million buy across four battleground states, contrasting his immigration plans with Clinton’s. But Trump waited for more than 100 days after he became the presumptive GOP nominee to buy his first anti-Clinton ad — more days than he now has left until the November election. And even as he has taken to TV, Trump and his allies are being out-advertised by Clinton and her super PAC supporters.

So far, Clinton has had to withstand in the general election less than one-third of the $50 million that Rubio’s campaign claimed he faced in negative ads during the GOP primary. She’s endured so little in paid attacks that some current Senate candidates have actually faced a bigger barrage of negative ads in their states than Clinton has nationwide.

“It’s astounding that there would be no serious advertising after he secured the nomination,” Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist and veteran of multiple presidential campaigns, said of Trump and the Republicans. “It’s so minor compared to what happened to other campaigns in other years.”

Trump, of course, has run his campaign like no other candidate in other years, relying heavily on his celebrity and media to broadcast his message to the public for free. His ability to dominate cable and the media conversation proved potent in the primaries and has given him an unparalleled megaphone during the early stages of the general election to broadcast his “Crooked Hillary” broadsides against Clinton.

Still, the disparity in paid advertising — where campaigns can deliver targeted, succinct messages repetitively — is striking.

According to Advertising Analytics, a firm which tracks both the number and content of all political ads aired on broadcast television and national cable, Clinton and her main super PAC had run more than 110,000 ads since she became the presumptive Democratic nominee, as of the end of last week. A pro-Trump super PAC and the political arm of the National Rifle Association had aired fewer than 7,500 spots during the same time period.

A majority of Clinton’s ads, 55 percent, have contained attacks on Trump, versus 45 percent that have been positive spots. Her super PAC has aired 100 percent negative ads, according to Advertising Analytics.

Trump’s first ad both attacks Clinton and promotes his immigration plan. All of the NRA-funded ads have been negative so far, and three-quarters of the ads from the pro-Trump Rebuilding America Now PAC have been negative.

Kyle Roberts, the founder of Advertising Analytics and a veteran GOP media-buyer of more than two decades, said such lopsided figures are “unprecedented” for the television era.

“Between unofficial nomination and today, Mitt Romney and his super PACs had already spent $200 million,” Roberts said. “What’s Trump done?”

Clinton’s mostly attack-ad-free 2016 has been the result of an unlikely confluence of good fortune.

First, she faced a primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, who eschewed negative campaigning. Sanders spent more on TV ads as of mid-May than any other presidential candidate, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, but had not attacked Clinton by name in any of his more than $73 million in television ads, though some took indirect swipes at her, such as for speaking fees.

Second, the Republicans nominated a self-described billionaire who had not built a fundraising apparatus during the primary and refused to tap his personal fortune for ads after he secured the nomination. “Do I want to sell a couple of buildings and self-fund?” Trump said on MSNBC on May 3, his first full day as the presumptive nominee. “I don’t know that I want to do that.”

Third, Trump’s rise turned off the Republican groups that had bought the most television ads in the 2012 presidential race, including the political network of billionaires Charles and David Koch and the Crossroads groups affiliated with GOP strategist Karl Rove. Neither network has bought any ads on behalf of Trump, or attacking Clinton.

The only historical parallel that strategists pointed to is the 1996 race, when President Clinton was unopposed in the primary as he ran for reelection and a hard-fought GOP primary left Sen. Bob Dole broke as he entered the general election. Dole lost that race and the Republican Party abandoned him in October in an effort to save GOP control of Congress.

But, unlike her husband in 1996, Hillary Clinton first navigated a competitive primary without negative TV ads and has achieved a dramatic TV edge in the general election without the advantages of incumbency. Other than the limited spots from pro-Trump groups since May, Clinton was mentioned in advertisements during the GOP primary, when some super PACs and Republicans, such as Ted Cruz, used attacks on her to promote their own candidacies.

Clinton’s allies and aides are quick to point out that Clinton has been the subject of attacks, televised or otherwise, for two decades.

“This campaign started with 17 Republican candidates all competing over who could attack her more to excite their base,” said Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “And, now, she's facing Donald Trump and his conspiracy-focused campaign team who are attempting every discredited and delusional attack they can think of.”

Even without negative ads in 2016, poll after poll has shown Clinton vulnerable on questions of public trust. The most recent Washington Post/ABC News survey, for instance, showed Clinton leading Trump by 8 points yet 59 percent of voters still said they did not find her “trustworthy.”

Republicans say those are exactly the types of weaknesses an aggressive ad campaign could have exposed or exploited.

“Failing to define a candidate allows them to compete for votes that they have no business competing for down the stretch in a campaign,” said Josh Holmes, a top Republican strategist and former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “In particular, the failure to define Hillary Clinton with key demographics that are absolutely necessary to win the election is beyond malpractice.”

Trump is now on the airwaves in four states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Clinton is on the air in those four, as well as three more: Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Her super PAC, Priorities USA, is also advertising in Virginia and Colorado.

Even in the four states where Trump is advertising, Clinton and her super PAC are currently out-advertising Trump and his allies.

In fact, Clinton is not even the most targeted Democrat in the country in terms of TV ads. That unfortunate title belongs to Ted Strickland, the former governor of Ohio and current Democratic nominee for Senate. Republicans have aired $30 million worth of ads in that race, according to Democratic and Republican media trackers.

According to Advertising Analytics, both Strickland and his Republican opponent, Sen. Rob Portman, have sustained more attack ads in Ohio since March than Clinton has nationwide since she became the presumptive nominee.