Rather, it’s her use of modern data analytics to buy television advertising more efficiently. This approach is allowing the Clinton campaign to reach more targeted voters, more directly and for less money, than Trump.

“Clinton’s campaign is likely measuring every [voting] universe,” Republican digital strategist Mark Stephenson said. “They are buying cheaper, deeper cable networks and programs to extend their modeled persuasion and other universes to reach them on other places other than broadcast news and sports that are extremely pricey.”

A detailed review of the candidates’ television spending patterns revealed Clinton’s strategic advantage. The Washington Examiner examined advertising expenditures made during the two weeks leading up to Labor Day.

Clinton outspent Trump $14.5 million to $7.7 million, according to information provided by media buying sources. But what mattered was how she spread the money around.

Sixty-four percent of Clinton’s advertising went to broadcast television networks; 36 percent ($5.2 million) was spent on 53 different cable television networks. Trump directed 87 percent of his ad dollars to broadcast and just 13 percent ($990,000) to cable.

That disparity matters.

Broadcast television might reach more people overall, but it can be expensive and inefficient. For a fraction of the cost, cable enables a campaign reach specific voting blocs in targeted electoral battlegrounds with tailored messaging.

Certain cable television networks and programs are low-rated overall compared to broadcast television, especially in prime time. But they can be widely watched by voters that fit a campaign’s targeted ethnic, gender, regional or other coveted demographic.

The vast amount of granular data now available on individual voters, plus information on viewing habits that cable and satellite providers glean from set-top boxes, has changed the nature of television advertising in campaigns.

“Smart campaigns now understand that you could get outspent on TV and still reach the voters you need to win on Election Day,” a senior GOP strategist said. “Whether you’re running for president or for Congress, meeting your target audience goals without lighting precious ad dollars on fire puts more money into GOTV — exactly where Trump lags.”

The problem with Trump’s clunky approach was evident in the television buy his campaign placed in the Washington, D.C., media market during the two-week period ending Sept. 5.

Presumably, the $586,000 Trump spent on D.C. broadcast was intended to reach voters in Northern Virginia — Virginia is considered a battleground state, but so far this cycle has appeared to be solid for Clinton.

Only 43 percent of the ad-buy, or $254,000 worth, reached potential Virginia voters.

The rest — 40 percent — was viewed by households in Maryland, a blue state that is not in play, with 13 percent covering D.C., another region guaranteed to deliver its Electoral College votes to Clinton. The remaining 4 percent of the buy covered a portion of West Virginia, a state that is a lock for Trump.

Trump could have prevented wasting the majority of this purchase by skipping broadcast and advertising on cable television in Northern Virginia. Overall, Clinton was advertising on cable in 38 media markets, compared to 22 markets for Trump.

On Monday, Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported that Trump was personally choosing where to run television ads during the period reviewed by the Examiner, although he has since turned that responsibility over to the professionals on his staff.

It’s highly unusual for a presidential candidate to be involved in such decisions.

Trump is hardly the first candidate for public office to advertise inefficiently. Last year, a GOP firm that advises candidates on maximizing television advertising, Targeted Victory, published a study on the most wasteful campaigns of 2014.

Clinton’s strategic advantage over Trump with television advertising could prove crucial as the presidential race appears to be tightening down the stretch.

Trump still trails in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, 45.8-43.4 percent, and still has what is considered a narrow path to the White House. But he has gained on Clinton since Labor Day, and the political fallout from her health episode and diagnosis with pneumonia remains unclear.

Trump is relying on the Republican National Committee for most of his voter turnout activities and data analytics. The RNC’s operation is formidable, but the national party doesn’t control Trump’s ad buying; that’s the purview of the campaign, whose digital capabilities are questionable.

In the two weeks leading up to Labor Day, 76 of 210 media markets around the country were touched by some level of television advertising from the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Clinton was spending more than Trump in 54 of those 76; the New York businessman held the advantage in the rest.

Viewed another way, Clinton held the edge in money spent in 24 out of 30 states whose airwaves received advertising by the campaigns, including most battlegrounds. Trump led in five, but that included Colorado, Michigan and Virginia, where Clinton has deemed her lead safe enough to stay off the air.

In the local markets that could swing the election, Clinton generally held the advantage in investment and, importantly, the ratio of broadcast to cable time purchased. Those markets included: