We are officially two weeks away from the June 8 California primary and judging from the political mail that keeps rolling in, my USPS postal carrier must be working overtime.
This past weekend, I received various slate mailers from a wide spectrum of slate mailer organizations. The California Federation of Teachers sent me their official election guide in which they endorsed Senator Barbara Boxer for the U.S. Senate, Jerry Brown for the Governorship, and Janice Hahn for Lieutenant Governor. They recommended voting No on Propositions 14 and 16 but yes on 15. In addition to their obvious bias towards Democratic candidates, they also encouraged Independent Voters to “Check the Democratic Ballot Box on your absentee request form or ask your attendant for a Democratic Ballot at the poll.” Needless to say, I will not be taking this guide with me on election day.
Another interesting mailer that arrived was from the Continuing the Republican Revolution group. After a google search, I learned that this slate is produced by the Hart & Associates political consulting firm. They recommended that I do the following: vote for Carly Fiorina for the U.S. Senate GOP nomination, Ron Roberts for the Board of Supervisors, and Lorie Zapf for San Diego City Council. Lorie Zapf was also prominently featured on mailers that arrived from the Republican Party of San Diego County and the LIncoln Club. She is now in the lead with six mailers (including the slate mentions).
Comments 8
Hey, Hart & Associates LLC is a for-profit advertising company! To say Lorie Zapf is recommended by them is rather misleading, since it’s a consultant firm, and the candidates pay for their advertising services. =P
Of course, I only call you out on this because I am strongly against Lorie Zapf. She’s a weak candidate with almost no independent support of her own, which is why she HAS to spend $30,000 on all those mailers; otherwise she wouldn’t have a chance at making it out of the primary!
http://www.10news.com/news/23651893/detail.html
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/zig_zag_zapf/9037/
I believe that Diana did note it as a consulting firm. Yes, we do know what that means. And, just about everyone in area politics knows that the Continuing the Republican Revolution slate card is a paid for opportunity, not to mention one of the best slates on which to appear. Apparently, Zapf is such a “weak candidate” that she has the resources to be on a slate and “has to” pay for mailers. That’s weak. LOL.
Come now, we didn’t just fall off the turnip truck on this blog. Weakness is in the eye of the beholder. It could be a lack of a grassroots effort. It could be a lack of ability to raise significant dollars, which could be construed as no one wants to give any money to that candidate. It could be that the winning candidate has the right balance of both, ground game and mail.
But, please don’t think for a second that the readership here doesn’t have a semblance of understanding of how these things work.
I’m curious AJ… IF… IF Lori Zapf is a weak candidate with no independent support… how much money has she raised from independent, individual donors? Oh, I believe you said $30,000 right?
And Kim Tran has raised how much in her last several, futile attempts at running for office? Less than $3,000? Even the dread-locked guy that ran for Mayor in 2008 raised more than that. Perhaps, Kim Tran needs some dreadlocks…
We get it, Kim Tran is your mom, and you support her. You think Lorie made bad financial decisions because her mortgage rated adjusted (only person in America that happened to) and you, a republican, cite citybeat as the foundation of fault. I’m about to post some recent polling data comment there if you’d like to. Also, I agree, more dreadlocks.
Author
AJ: I did note that the Continuing the Republican Revolution slate is a product of a consulting firm. Since I am a new blogger, perhaps I should have been more clear about the fact that I realize that candidates pay to appear on these publications. However, as Thor’s assistant indicated, the Rostra readership has a grasp on how these things work and that is why I did not elaborate further.
I disagree with your argument that Lorie is a weak candidate and therefore must pay her way into people’s mailboxes. On the contrary, a candidate’s ability to fundraise, generate monetary backing from the party, and purchase these types of advertisements is directly linked with their “seriousness.”
I literally just found this on Lorie Zapf, and I had to post it:
http://www.blogofsandiego.com/Elections.htm#05/24/10
It doesn’t matter who authors are. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. I have a college education. I’m not the irrational type to assume any article from city beat or the union tribune or whatever source is just completely wrong no matter what. I’ll actually listen to what someone has to say, regardless of their agenda.
What matters to me is a good argument, with good evidence. Read that article I just cited. Do you have a reasonable counter argument or explanation for her actions, other than “His blog is liberal!” ?
Logic: FYI Kim Tran raised about $17,000 for State Assembly. Not $3,000. Kim Tran is purposefully not accepting campaign donations for this primary. And I just linked you to articles that I feel weaken Lorie Zapfs ability to get votes. I think it takes more than just money to win. But I might be wrong. I’ll let you know after this election.
Thor’s assistant: I simply said it was misleading to phrase it in the way she did. Was I wrong? I also didn’t make any claim about the Rostra readership not having a semblance of how things work. ^_^() ‘Not even for a second!’
Also, you didn’t have to tell me that different people have different definitions of what a weak candidate is. I guess I assumed that was obvious? o.O
Here’s my definition: I consider a weak candidate to be one that is dishonest; who can’t gather her own volunteers; doesn’t convince people to vote for her; and has a background that could undermine her credibility i.e. not paying her mortgages. Can $30,000 in mailers cover that? It could…but we’ll have to see.
I have no doubt that Kim Tran cares deeply for her community and has worked hard to get elected. So, nothing personal here, it’s simply politics. I have talked to dozens of candidates over the years that for whatever reason were committed to not accepting campaign contributions, thinking they could succeed without it, say by solely going door to door and posting signs. They all have one thing in common. Every one of them lost. Their first big political lesson typically takes place at 8:01 pm on election night. This race will be no different.
Kim raised $17,000 for Assembly and STILL couldn’t beat Ralph Denney in a republican primary?
AJ, perhaps it’s not the conservative message, but the messenger.