Low information voters ... or dirty campaigning?

[NightHawkeye]

The Controversial Way a Conservative White Guy Fooled a Predominantly Black District Into Voting Him Into Office | TheBlaze.com

One of his mailers even said, “Endorsed by Ron Wilson,” implying he had attained support from a famous former black state representative. In fact, in fine print below the endorsement, the campaign clarified that “Ron Wilson and Dave Wilson are cousins.”

“He’s a nice cousin,” Wilson told KHOU-TV. “We played baseball in high school together. And he’s endorsed me.”​

Seems to me he just never clarified that he wasn't black.

 

[HorsieJuice]

That's pretty hilarious.

Normally, I'd be dismayed that a right-wing candidate won, but the office is that of HCC Trustee, so I don't really care.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

They elect the government officials that they deserve.

 

[Protocol11]

I think the dude is as smart as those voters are stupid. Just goes to show how racist and stupid the voters in that election are. "Let's vote for this white guy because were too stupid to know he's not black"

 

[HorsieJuice]

I think the dude is as smart as those voters are stupid. Just goes to show how racist and stupid the voters in that election are. "Let's vote for this white guy because were too stupid to know he's not black"

When was the last time you paid attention to elections for community college trustee? I didn't even know they had elections for that.

This guy figured out a way to build name recognition with a voting block he otherwise wouldn't have.

 

[Protocol11]

No community colleges near me, but that's a fair point.

 

[Sistrin]

And he’s endorsed me.”[/INDENT][/I]Seems to me he just never clarified that he wasn't black.

Quibbling. He didn't come out and tell a bold face lie, he just omitted a salient fact. However in some circles quibbling can get you into just as much trouble.

 

[ProudMomxmany]

Dirty campaigning is not limited to local elections. If ALL voters would exercise due diligence in researching what each candidate says or claims the other side says, election results might be much different. However, as long as there are knee-jerk types on both sides who just demonize the side they don't agree with, there will be straight party-line voters on both sides.

It would be nice if the candidates would tell what they ARE promising instead of smearing the other guy in their ads. However, they are relying on the ignorance and stupidity of the electorate, knowing that the claims will never be researched. Honest, it's not that hard to research the claims...Google is an incredible resource. However, they also know that most of the electorate lacks the critical thinking skills to make a truly informed decision, they are too enamoured of their own particular ideology and terrified of looking at opposing information because it might upset their own little apple cart.

For heaven's sake...the electorate gets the representation they deserve because they are too unwilling or unable to properly investigate on their own, instead they choose to swallow whatever shill is spouting on the tv screen.

Shame on all of them!

 

[NightHawkeye]

Quibbling. He didn't come out and tell a bold face lie, he just omitted a salient fact. However in some circles quibbling can get you into just as much trouble.

In his defense though, he told the voters what they wanted to hear ... and he got the endorsement of a well-known prior representative, someone who most assuredly knew his skin color.

I lean toward him highlighting what was important to the voters and omitting adverse information. It's the same tactic the Democratic party used to great effect getting Obama elected.

 

[HorsieJuice]

... and he got the endorsement of a well-known prior representative, someone who most assuredly knew his skin color.

Not sure if you're kidding or if you missed that part of the article, but he didn't get the "endorsement of a well-known prior representative." He got the endorsement of a relative who had the same name as a well-known prior representative.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not sure if you're kidding or if you missed that part of the article, but he didn't get the "endorsement of a well-known prior representative." He got the endorsement of a relative who had the same name as a well-known prior representative.

Neither The Blaze nor KHOU says that directly. The KHOU article certainly implies that though.

Perhaps he'll be such a good representative for this area that he'll be reelected next time around.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Neither The Blaze nor KHOU says that directly. The KHOU article certainly implies that though.

That's probably my favorite part of all of this.

Perhaps he'll be such a good representative for this area that he'll be reelected next time around.

I wouldn't be surprised, to be honest. But again, he's not really a representative, he's a community college trustee.

 

[A2SG]

I lean toward him highlighting what was important to the voters and omitting adverse information. It's the same tactic the Democratic party used to great effect getting Obama elected.

Or, y'know, a tactic every politician has ever used, ever.

-- A2SG, not like no one thought of it until 2008.....

 

[trunks2k]

wait... so what was the position for? Community College trustee? How many people know anything at ALL about the candidates for that sort of thing? Did he actually convince anyone he was black and or had the support of black leaders? Or is this just a case of the guy won a race he would have won anyways or won by the luck because people didn't care and just picked a random name, and now the opponent is looking for an excuse?

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but in local elections, if it's not the mayor, DA, or city council rep, nobody knows anything about any of the candidates. Instead, people are often voted for by either if they have an R or D next to their name, or which name is listed first on the ballot. Seriously... we have a few elections where you can choose up to X number of candidates and people just pick the first X people on the ballot. There's a whole call for reform as to how you get your name placed on the ballot because of this.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Or, y'know, a tactic every politician has ever used, ever.

-- A2SG, not like no one thought of it until 2008.....

wait... so what was the position for? Community College trustee? How many people know anything at ALL about the candidates for that sort of thing? Did he actually convince anyone he was black and or had the support of black leaders? Or is this just a case of the guy won a race he would have won anyways or won by the luck because people didn't care and just picked a random name, and now the opponent is looking for an excuse?

Maybe it's just the area I live in, but in local elections, if it's not the mayor, DA, or city council rep, nobody knows anything about any of the candidates. Instead, people are often voted for by either if they have an R or D next to their name, or which name is listed first on the ballot. Seriously... we have a few elections where you can choose up to X number of candidates and people just pick the first X people on the ballot. There's a whole call for reform as to how you get your name placed on the ballot because of this.

Hmm ... I'll take those opinions as indications that low-information voters prevailed in this election.

 

[Joykins]

I would think a deliberate effort to deceive voters (although perhaps avoiding the technical lie of commission) works against the spirit of democracy, at the very least. So I vote dirty, not that a lot of other politicians are necessarily clean.

Community college trustee. You want a guy like that in charge of educational institutions? Oooookay.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I would think a deliberate effort to deceive voters (although perhaps avoiding the technical lie of commission) works against the spirit of democracy, at the very least. So I vote dirty, not that a lot of other politicians are necessarily clean.

Hmm ... on one hand, a politician who lies through his teeth to buy votes. On the other hand one who cleverly speaks to the voters in their own language while avoiding lies.

Wanna know who I trust more?

Community college trustee. You want a guy like that in charge of educational institutions? Oooookay.

Perhaps he'll be able to speak to the regents, faculty and administration in a language they will understand, as well.

 

[trunks2k]

Hmm ... I'll take those opinions as indications that low-information voters prevailed in this election.

When it comes to local elections, almost all voters are low-information when you go lower than mayor. At least where I live, it's not reasonable to expect voters to be informed on all the various candidates for the myriad positions.

On certain years, I can be voting on a dozen different judicial positions with a field of several dozen candidates. And that's just one of several different sections on the ballot that have dozens of candidates and several open positions (choose X from a field of Y). Heck, we vote on, IIRC, at least two different sets of judges - common pleas and traffic. It's crazy to think people will be informed about those races. When those sorts of elections come around, I even try to get a decent idea of who to vote for, but it's very hard to find much information on those sorts of candidates. In some cases, I'm not even clear on what the heck the position even IS. If it's difficult for me, a person who tries to at least be somewhat informed on local politics beyond what is the headline on the news, it's even harder for the "average" person.

It becomes just selecting random names based on very limited data - a R or D, or incumbent vs non-incumbent.

 

[NightHawkeye]

When it comes to local elections, almost all voters are low-information when you go lower than mayor. At least where I live, it's not reasonable to expect voters to be informed on all the various candidates for the myriad positions.

On certain years, I can be voting on a dozen different judicial positions with a field of several dozen candidates. And that's just one of several different sections on the ballot that have dozens of candidates and several open positions (choose X from a field of Y). Heck, we vote on, IIRC, at least two different sets of judges - common pleas and traffic. It's crazy to think people will be informed about those races. When those sorts of elections come around, I even try to get a decent idea of who to vote for, but it's very hard to find much information on those sorts of candidates. In some cases, I'm not even clear on what the heck the position even IS. If it's difficult for me, a person who tries to at least be somewhat informed on local politics beyond what is the headline on the news, it's even harder for the "average" person.

It becomes just selecting random names based on very limited data - a R or D, or incumbent vs non-incumbent.

It's not much different here ... but a reasonable question is why is there so little information?

The best answer I have is that the local press isn't doing its job. It's really not complicated. The local newspaper is owned by a conglomerate which provides lots of touch-feely stories ... but no substance. It's the same for the local TV stations as well. In last week's city council election the TV station's website simply put up a summary paragraph for each candidate ... as written by the candidates.

 

[trunks2k]

It's not much different here ... but a reasonable question is why is there so little information?

Because there's not much reason to have information. With so many candidates running and so many positions available, candidates are better off just going by their placement on the ballot.

The best answer I have is that the local press isn't doing its job.

I think it's a mix. Of isn't, can't, and doesn't matter. In some cases, such as the corruption in the sheriffs office, the local press isn't doing much. In some cases, there just isn't the funds to report on all the individuals running in a big election year. It's just not feasible nowadays.

In some cases, people just. don't. care. There have been major stories on corruption within the traffic court system. The general consensus by people who have been following the story is that the most effective thing to do is just can all the traffic court judges as first step. Yet, despite the stories, they still get re-elected. It's just not on people's radars. Too low-level to care about.

We at least have a group that tries to make it easier by sending out questionnaires to all the candidates and posting the responses on a website along with a bit of info they could find elsewhere. It does a decent job, but there's still a lot of missing information.