Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Saving the Soul of the Georgia Democratic Party
There's hope. It's a good evening when the candidate branded as "a decent man" wins overwhelmingly. That's exactly what happened tonight when Jim Martin won the Democratic primary. Clearly, if negative campaigns always win, Jim would not be the nominee. Other candidates should take note. Jim, for whom community service is a family value, will be a great Lt. Governor. Congratulations, Jim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
negative campaigning is not the only thing that wins campaigns.
negative campaigning is always, and will always, be effective.
Unless we get Instant Runoff Voting. Then you would negative campaigning decrease significantly
I like what Catherine (I think), or maybe it was Mel, over at BfD said a couple of months ago about negative campaigning. It's another form of voter suppression, even if not intentional. So while we definitely saw evidence of polls moving as a result of negative campaigning, we also saw quite a few of those voters tune those candidates out or not vote at all.
One thing about Jim Martin though. When Hecht started his attack mailings, Martin stayed the course. He relied on his decades long record and his ability to come across to voters as anything other than someone not looking out for the welfare of women and children. That, essentially, is what broke open a tight race. And its that kind of likeability and poise that will give Cagle trouble down the road.
I've known Jim for 30 years or so and he is genuinely a decent, capable person. That's a rarity in politics.
Mark Taylor / Jim Martin
Those are our candidates and we must go all out to make sure that both of them are elected. For, if they're not, no other elected Georgia official will have any power at all. There will be no minority party.
Repeat after me...
Taylor/Martin
Taylor/Martin
Taylor/Martin
Tim, educate me, please. What is "instant runoff voting."
oh,
btw, if anyone knows anyone who says they will stay home b/c they are sick of negative campaigning, tell them, that is the point of negative ads. Fewer people voting=easier to steer.
I think JM won cos he didnt stray from his message. That's how you derail negative campaigns *BUT*...if--ok--once CC goes negative, JM won't be able to not say its wrong and get away with it.
Amy, not to speak for Tim (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), but I think he's talking about rules that allow you to rank your order of preference of candidates. This way, if a clear winner hasn't been decided, composite rankings can be used to determine a winner in an instant runoff. It would save a lot of time and money. And it would also give us more leeway in the scheduling of elections.
Thanks, Button. That clears up the question for me. Interesting idea.
they have something similar to instant runoff in australia...wow. let me just say, if you want more people to vote, instant runoffs aint it.
Way too confusing.
Post a Comment