Pulling the trigger

Anonymity can be an amazing thing. Some of history's greatest charitable contributions have been made anonymously. Some of the most famous quotes have been anonymous. And in this day and age, most people like to express their opinions anonymously. We've been digging through local media, blogs and forums and have found a whole e-subculture of thinkers who have laid out their grand ideas. The Sentinel's bulletin board, the Patriot's forums, blogs, letters to the editor, the list goes on. Some people pay no attention, but others - well, others literally hire consultants to manage their online image. That says a lot about the credibility of anonymous opinions.

We've been keeping up on the comments on most of the boards in the region and frankly, haven't been impressed. They lack substance, information, and background - in short, the average level of information that a voter goes into the booth with. Shameful.

We found one comment amongst a pile of horrid, offensive comments (which is why we won't be posting a link here) that got us thinking. It was critical of Commissioner Barclay's efforts to construct monstrous billboards across the county in a sort of countywide homage. While the poster blamed it on an out of control ego, we started thinking about the wide array of campaign tools that "insiders" use and swear as effective, but plenty of other people swear are useless. Giant billboards, "robo"calls, door knocking, phone banks, the list goes on. People don't like to be bothered these days. And plenty of people have told us that these invasive efforts make them sway the other way.

Well, since you asked, here's our theory. There are really only three outcomes that can come from an invasive grassroots political strategy. 1) The egotistical billboards and annoying recorded calls make a voter bitter and vote against a candidate on election day. 2) They make the voter stay home to protest the candidate's "over the top" efforts. 3) The calls and signs actually work and name ID burns a hole in the voter's head. Now, if you ask most people, they say that the percentages point toward the first option. But you know what? We just don't believe it. Look, in a primary, option 2 or option 3 is acceptable (after all, you may not be getting a vote by a stay-at-home voter, but neither is your opponent). So, going in, you've already got a 66% success rate. And how many people show up and vote out of protest? If the claims were accurate, we think that voter turnout would be a heck of a lot higher.

So, who's the winner? The candidates, thats who. Because we don't believe you, angry voters. You might be angry, but we don't believe you have the chutzpah to get up, go out, and vote in protest. You'll either stay home, or give in. And you wonder why they put up those obnoxious signs and blast you with recorded phone calls?