*Please see comments-it’s not “wrong”.
Hint: look all the way at the bottom of the mailer.
Does anyone know anything about this? Is it some kind of “photo-shopped” effort on someones part to discredit the candidates listed and the DPG?
If the candidates don’t already know, someone please forward this to them. The DPG should also respond as well.
Hat-tip to my new Facebook friend Keith M.
by
Tags:
I wondered about that, specifically if Reed and Borders being listed would be enough to satisfy the “slate” requirement (maybe not because you can’t vote for both of them at the same time).
Although honestly, while the tiny name in the disclaimer may be of interest to us junkies, I don’t think anyone else notices it and if they do they probably shrug it off. I certainly don’t think it either helps or hurts a candidate to be included in the tag line, though higher profile ones may wish to avoid it in line with their general desire to avoid controversy when possible.
Well yes, better than the Elephant mailer names I guess.
http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/2009/10/now_lets_see_if_i_can_follow_t.html
Gotcha… as far as Mel’s comment-as least those two folks were very vocal supporters of Sen. Reed’s that at least makes some sense.
It’s probably too inside baseball for the average voter. I suppose one person could allege “how dare you be associated with this discredited hit piece” or something like that, but it’s hard enough to get traction for a serious critique of someone that affects the actual voters that are in play, much less something hyper technical like this.
In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to acknowledge that the parties are going to spend money on their candidates and let them do it without the restriction of it being a “multi-candidate” expense, but good luck having a common sense reform like that make it through the legislature and the risk of the legislature starting with a common sense reform like that and ending with something unintended that ends up restricting the rights of the parties is too great to make it worth bothering.
So, politics as usual…
I guess, but how does this stuff not end up on an “opposition” hit piece later on?
Well, the irony is the candidates listed are actually doing the party a favor. Now, if you dig down deep enough I’m sure there’s some candidate that would love to be on it no matter what, but you get my drift.
Kasim Reed’s materials had vote for Vincent Fort and Nan Orrock, even though they aren’t up for re-election until next year.
I guess Angela Moore can’t say they never gave her anything.
Chris-thanks for clarifying, I would wish that since this piece was so clearly targeted to women that the candidates mentioned would chime in if they had a choice of being on this or not.
Nah, it’s just fulfilling a legal requirement that party expenditures benefit a “slate” of candidates.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the candidates mentioned agreed to be on there – not because it expands their name recognition with voters or anything like that, but because it curries favor with the party establishment.
Literally millions of pieces like this will go out next year from both parties with a similar tag line.
One twist in this election is that even though multiple candidates are listed, they are not all on the ballot for the same election. Apparently this has been dealt with in the past by picking some random small town city council race and using one of those candidates as the second candidate and sending the mail to both jurisdictions, no doubt causing the small town folks to wonder who it is they are getting mail about.
Kind of nice to see the party trailblazing in this capacity, though in fairness, pretty sure the Republicans have already done it this way.
Leave a Reply