Take That, Madison Avenue
By MaryJane Weedman

Despite Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s large surge in advertising spending before today’s primaries and caucuses, many New York City voters said their decisions on Super Tuesday were unaffected by such ads.

Clinton and Obama reportedly spent a combined $19 million on advertising in the days before Feb. 5. But most New Yorkers voting at the 110 E. 14th St. polling place near Union Square said such publicity had little to no impact.

Isabel, 54, said she was “not at all” affected by candidates’ advertisements. Instead, the debates played a central role in her decision to vote for Obama.

“You’ve been voting for so many years…and you hear the same story over and over again. You look at the old school, and you go, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah.’ And then you hear somebody like Obama, who’s so smart, and so eloquent, and so calm about his message,” said Isabel.

Jim Venturi was also unaffected by the candidates’ advertising. Instead, he said, what most influenced his choice to vote for Obama was the candidate’s “personal qualities.” Venturi said he thought Obama was more electable, more genuine and had better judgment than the other candidates.

“And probably most importantly, I like him better,” said Venturi.
For some voters, the advertising was both ineffective and overwhelming. As one Manhattan office manager said, “I think it’s been too much, too early. It might have affected some people, but not me.”

Manhattan resident Kate Taylor said she did not even see any candidates’ advertisements. Her decision, she said, was influenced by reading newspapers and speaking with friends.

Reports have indicated that Romney and McCain had a “far more restrained advertising effort” than Clinton and Obama.

If the voters in Union Square are representative of the greater population, perhaps Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain were right to not spend heavily on advertisements after all.