But, to be sure, my reaction to the ads is ultimately subjective. The idea though is to get a sense of the 'issue terrain' where the campaign is being fought and whether that inherently favors one candidate over the other, regardless of the quality of the ads. Since both Arcuri and Meier are focusing on 'change' - with the added undercurrent of countering negative ads on the part of Meier (i.e., "bad habits") - I think that favors Arcuri since he's more the 'agent of change' so far as that district, if for no other reason than that he's challenging the incumbent party.
I think you may have overanalyzed the ads. I don't see them as changing many votes myself. Sure a marginal seat in NY that is open = Dem victory this year, but one has to know more about the pull and reputation of the candidates on the ground, how they interact with votes, and what the local rags are saying, and whom they endorse, and whether they are Dem or GOP rags in general in the past. Absent that, we go with the polls, the partisan history, the wave, and the money tree. That is usually enough, except when it isn't.