In Decision 2012, the political attack ads haven't made their way to Texas yet, but already millions of dollars have been spent to try to influence voters.
The attack ads have caused a lot of bloodshed on the campaign trail. They're vicious, unrelenting and thanks to a new Supreme Court decision, largely unregulated.
The last attack is a mini-documentary on Mitt Romney's role as chief executive officer of investment firm Bain Capital.
It states, "For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town."
It wasn't an unprovoked assault.
An anti-Newt Gingrich ad stated, "Newt has a ton of baggage."
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, despite strict limits on campaign contributions, wealthy corporations and individuals can pour unlimited cash into "Super PACs" which funds billions of dollars in ads.
They just can't communicate with the candidates themselves.
How much influence do the stinging attacks really have?
Gingrich supporter John Grooms told Local 2, "I'm a critical thinker, but, unfortunately, I think the negative attacks take candidates down when people don't understand the full crux of the issues."
Romney supporter Monique Harrison said, "No, they really, really don't because it happens the same way every election. There are attack ads, unfortunately, but it does not change my mind."
Gingrich supporter Karen Post added, "If they speak the truth, they speak the truth. In the political season, you have your record, and you live by your record or you die by your record."
Firmly at the top of the leader board, Romney has definitely taken the most pot shots. The question is: Will it be enough to put a ding in his armor?
David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Political Research Center told Local 2, "I think it would have more impact if it were in a general election audience. I think they're kind of wasting bullets."
It appears there's no end in sight.
Paleologos predicts more than $5 billion in attack ads will be spent over the next 10 months.