This is the most exciting presidential election in years, and already television is awash with ads for Barack Obama and John McCain.

The question is, how much is too much?

At what point does the constant exposure to political ads begin working against the candidates?

The answer: Fairly soon. And that's with two-plus months left of electioneering by the candidates, never mind all the ads we'll see for candidates in other races and on various political issues.

In a Media Life poll on the elections the other day, media buyers and planners were asked this question: Forecasters say that a record amount will be spent on political advertising this year. From a media perspective, will it turn out to be overkill?

Just over a quarter, 27 percent, dismissed the idea of overkill entirely, believing the money's been well spent. They agreed with this statement:

"It gets down to this: In media, it's dollar against dollar. Sure there is waste, but at some point the bigger spender is going to win."

But the largest share, 41 percent, thought it was already approaching overkill, agreeing with this statement:

"It's not overkill yet but we're headed in that direction. At some point, voters are going to get turned off, and it's going to start hurting the candidates. One or two of them will recraft their spending and come out ahead."

And the rest, 32 percent, thought we'd already reached overkill, agreeing with this statement:

"What we are seeing is pure excess. Neither has a real media strategy. They are spending because the other is, but America long ago tuned out."

Interestingly, while readers rated both Obama and McCain equal on whether they were getting their message across, more thought Obama had a better media strategy in place.

Asked who's doing a better job getting his messages across to the American people, 35 percent chose McCain and 35 percent chose Obama, with 22 percent believing it was too early to tell. Eight percent thought neither was doing a good job.

But when asked who had the better media strategy, 58 percent chose Obama, agreeing with this statement:

"I like his strategy of pushing McCain in states like Virginia, forcing his opponent to spend money where he would not have otherwise gone."

Just 43 percent chose McCain, agreeing with this statement:

"He must spend more judiciously because he's using public funds, and so far he has run a smart campaign."

Another interesting result came out of a question about total spending on the campaigns. Most forecasts see spending topping $3 billion, setting a new record. But so far spending on local TV, which typically gets almost all campaign dollars, has been less than expected.

That may be why many media buyers think spending will fall short of projections.

Asked to forecast total election spending this year, nearly two thirds, 61 percent, thought spending would come at or below projections. Ten percent chose under $2.5 billion, while 25 percent chose $2.5 billion to $2.9 billion. Another 25 percent chose $3 billion.

The remaining 39 percent chose figures between $3.1 billion and $3.5 billion or more.

In terms of TV coverage of the elections, media planners and buyers think CNN is doing the best job, and by a healthy margin.

Asked to name the network providing the best, most balanced coverage of the election, 30 percent chose CNN.

No. 2 was NBC but at just over half of what CNN got, 16 percent. ABC and Fox News tied for No. 3 at 13.5 percent each, and after that came Comedy Central at 8 percent. That's ahead of both CBS and MSNBC, each at 5 percent.

The broadcast networks have stepped up their election coverage this year, and Media Life was curious whether media people thought it was a smart move in light of the intensive coverage the cable news networks are giving to the elections.

Almost half, 49 percent, gave an unqualified yes, agreeing with this statement: "The primary season drew a lot of interest, and besides, it's summer -- what else are people going to watch?"

But 35 percent were divided, agreeing with this statement: "Yes and no. I think the broadcasters have a civic duty to provide more coverage. That said, they're not going to draw a lot of viewers."

The remainder, 16 percent, thought the broadcast networks were making a mistake, agreeing with this statement: "This election has been a cable story and it will stay that way. The broadcasters had the right amount of coverage before."

As to viewership, readers think Obama will draw a larger crowd for his acceptance speech than John Kerry did in 2004, when 24.4 million viewers watched on the broadcast and cable networks. The largest share, 28 percent, see 28.1 million to 30 million tuning in, while 25 percent peg it at 30.1 million to 35 million. And nearly as many, 22 percent, see it reaching 35.1 million or more.

Just 6 percent see the audience ranging between 20.1 million to 24 million, and 8 percent see Obama drawing in the neighborhood of what Kerry drew, at between .24.1 million to 26 million.

In contrast, readers think McCain will draw in the range of what President Bush drew in 2004 for his acceptance speech--27.5 million, or perhaps fewer.

The largest share, 28 percent, chose 26.1 million to 28 million viewers.

But 43 percent chose fewer than 26 million, while only 28 percent chose more than 28 million.