Interesting Election stuff

[alfsauve]

Well, I hope it's interesting.

We're having a wonderful time in Georgia's 6th Congressional District.

1) A free for all special election where party affiliation didn't matter.
2)  That means the runoff could have potentially been between 2 candidates of the same party.
3) We had 18 candidates to choose from, who diluted the votes, causing a runoff.
4) 10s of MILLIONS of dollars from out of state, mostly California, have poured in.  And mostly for the Democratic candidate.
5) My employer got a mention, negatively, in the Huffington Post, just because we turned the sprinklers on campaign workers who were waving campaign signs on our front lawn.  While we're an equal opportunity group, most of those workers were for the Democrat, so we got dissed pretty badly.
6) The local stations have had to add new NEWS shows or extend the time of their broadcasts because there so much commercial money and so little time to air it.  This is a dirty little TV secret, but one station decided to come out and admit that's why they do specials around election time.
7) The phone doesn't stop between 6-8pm with the campaign calls disguised as "surveys"
On top of that my STATE senate district also had a runoff Tuesday for a vacant seat as well.

[You can't have an EIGHT and a ")" cause it turns in to an emoji]

Up for discussion today.

What good are all these campaign workers waving placards on election day?   Do they actually add votes for a candidate?   I think they are a liability and here's why.

Thesis:  Campaign workers waving signs at voting precincts will lose votes for their candidate.

Definitions: 
Committed Voter:  Someone who has made their choice and is determined to vote.  They are not swayed by sign wavers.
Apathy voter:  Someone who may or may not decide to vote as the mood strikes them.

Consider possible positive scenarios.
1)   Apathy voter decides to vote for the candidate because of the sign wavers
2)   Apathy voter supporting the opposing candidate decides not vote because it looks like the candidate has a landslide.

Balance that with these possible negative scenarios.
3)   Apathy voter decides to vote for opposing candidate.
4)   Apathy voter decides not to vote for candidate because it looks like they’re the overwhelming choice.
5)   Apathy voter decides not to vote for candidate because actions of sign wavers are perceived to be in poor taste.
6)   Apathy voter votes for opposing candidate because actions of sign wavers are perceived to be in poor taste.

Scenarios, 1 thru 4 are probably rare and at best case balance out, but scenarios 5 & 6, besides resulting in negative votes, could turn into a PR nightmare, add to a poor image (win or lose), and loose future support.  So why do candidates allow this activity when the possibility for a negative outcome is so high?

[tombogan03884]

No such thing as an "apathy voter".
There are just dumb asses who want to guess the winner like the lottery number.
Democrats assume these people are so damned dumb they will be swayed by volume supplied by paid crowds, or screaming fanatics.
That's why the paid students and bums to attend Hillary rallies.

[alfsauve]

Tom,

I think there are people who aren't committed to voting even though they may support a candidate.  Dumb A they may be, but whether they vote or not depends on the weather, the traffic and the emotion of the moment.    I label such people, for the purpose of this discussion, apathy voters. 

I know you're passionate about a lot of the things politic, but you're moving off topic with paid protesters at rallies.    What has caught my interest at the moment is the campaign workers, volunteer or paid, waving signs near polling places.   Does it help or hurt a candidate? What good do they perform?  What harm can they do?

[alfsauve]

And nobody wants to know more about the Spinkler-Gate?

[tombogan03884]

Not getting off topic at all Alf .
It's the same thing, an effort to sway people through creating an impression of greater popularity than they actually have.
Just like Obama's OFA advises their "actvist's" to spread out at town hall meetings.
Which seems more impressive, Liberal talking points coming from a dozen point's in the crowd ? Or a dozen idiots stuck in one corner of a crowd ?
It's all theater and BS.


And yeah, what's with the sprinklers ?

[Sponsor]

[alfsauve]

Not getting off topic at all Alf .
It's the same thing, an effort to sway people through creating an impression of greater popularity than they actually have.
Just like Obama's OFA advises their "actvist's" to spread out at town hall meetings.
Which seems more impressive, Liberal talking points coming from a dozen point's in the crowd ? Or a dozen idiots stuck in one corner of a crowd ?
It's all theater and BS.

But for election polling places, does this work for or against the candidate?   Do they actually garner more votes from "apathy" or undecided voters?   Or is there a risk of losing votes, net?

I'm addressing one very specific venue here.

[tombogan03884]

I don't think it has any effect either way unless it's a cumulative effect on top of dinnertime calls, door knockers and daily mail inserts makes people want to make them go away by voting against the most annoying of the SOB's.

[tombogan03884]

So, what did you do with the sprinklers ?

[alfsauve]

a) In GA it's against regulations to put campaign signs on publicly owned property.
b) In order to place campaign signs on private property, you must have permission of the owner.

So get that now.  Public property, NO.   Private property, only with permission.   There is no in-between.

You can walk, with signs, on any public accessible property, such as sidewalks, provided you do not block passage for other people.


So, my employer has about 300' of road frontage within sight of 3 polling places.   There is a public sidewalk.   We're a non-profit, a charitable non-profit and we can not show favoritism.   We do not approve any campaign signs on our property, but we do respect the right of citizens to walk up and down the sidewalk, as the easement requires.

At the 6 district election, a number, a large number of campaign workers set up a picnic area on our front lawn with lawn chairs and coolers, and planted signs up and down the grass near the road. The people got real ugly when someone tried to explain things to them.   Rather than let the Sheriff handle it, an overzealous employee, of the landscaping variety, decided it would be a good time to water the lawn.

Somehow Huff Post put it in a larger story about the 6th election.  The local papers and the TV networks tried to make hay of it, but we refused to talk to the reporters.   It only took 48 hours before it was a non-story and the news cycle went somewhere else.

And the fun continues.

[tombogan03884]

Good for the lawn guy.
We still have private ownership of property whether those commie turds like it or not.