So, Chuck Riley and Terry Rilling both want me to vote for them.

[butterfly]

Chuck Riley has been sending smallish bits of advertising that have mentioned his stand on certain issues (without mentioning his opponent's stand). Terry Rilling has been sending biggish bits of advertising with comparision lists (in the expectation that I will agree with all of his 'yes'es and none of Chuck Riley's 'no's).

Chuck Riley hadn't informed me of his non-support for 'traditional marriage', but Terry Rilling did. Chuck Riley hadn't mentioned that he supports raising various taxes, but you can be sure that Terry Rilling did (I noted a noticable lack of a mention that Chuck Riley supports a sales tax -- of course, that's because nine of the tax increases that Terry says Chuck support are from the same measure). Terry Rilling also calls the estate tax (which only the wealthiest 1% of people pay when they die) the 'death' tax.

I had no particular feelings about Chuck Riley before Terry Rilling started sending me mail, but now, I like the man. I like him for being classy enough not to send me biased comparision lists (the word choices on this thing are hilarious, if a little depressing, considering how suggestable people can be sometimes).

So, yes, Chuck Riley -- Not an Asshole (or, at least, definitely less of one than Terry Rilling, who is really starting to get on my nerves).

Comments

[jic]

Word up, yo.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

*fist of solidarity*

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah. In general, political ads are far more likely to convince me *not* to vote for a particular candidate than actually to vote *for* him or her. Either because they assume my beliefs are the opposite of what they are (as with 'traditional marriage'), or the sheer negativity that makes me snarl at my television or the flier, or because the overwhelming smarm and/or condescension disgusts me.

My brother was very grateful when, right before the 2004 election, the Republican Party sent him a flier listing all the people he should vote for (I think it was called something awful, like "voting checklist"). He said that he hadn't known who to vote for in the judges' elections, since they don't officially have party affiliations, but the Republican list had helpfully told him who they endorsed, so he was confident in casting his vote for the other candidates.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

He said that he hadn't known who to vote for in the judges' elections, since they don't officially have party affiliations, but the Republican list had helpfully told him who they endorsed, so he was confident in casting his vote for the other candidates.

Ha! Yes, I definitely see his point.

Some politicians are so relentlessly negative about their opponents. It baffles me that that works sometimes, that people actually vote for hate. Depresses and baffles me.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

The awful thing is that it seems to work a *lot* -- otherwise, they wouldn't put nearly so much effort into it! Of course, both parties really do stoop to it, but I don't think it's just my imagination or my own biases that suggest that the Republicans are much, much worse about it.

Over the past couple days, I've gotten general ads from both major parties in the mail, both helpfully providing me with an unnecessary absentee ballot application. One ad had some (potentially) incendiary pictures, including one of certain notorious figures from the other party all looking like they were screaming, and another literally incendiary one, showing a stack of burning money. It had the huge slogan "DON'T LET THEM WIN!" The other party's ad has big pictures of their own main candidates at blatant photo ops, plus little pictures of more of their candidates for statewide races, with the big slogan "[Our party] -- PUTTING MICHIGAN FIRST". I'll let you guess which party put out which ad.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I've also noticed a lack of balance in which side engages in more mudslinging. I really, really hate that it works for some people.