KARE 11 talks about the role of youtube in elections.
The New York Times probably picked up that claim and ran with it.
Commenters at Dump Bachmann react to the New York Times article:
Wetterling's deceptive anti-Bachmann ads: slime never sleeps.
It's easy to make sport of Michele Bachmann, the state legislator who says God told her to run for the U.S. Congress, remains skeptical about global warming, and is best known for her opposition to gay marriage. By contrast, Bachmann's opponent, Patty Wetterling, entered political life as a powerfully sympathetic figure who had a son go missing nearly 20 years ago and has worked tirelessly to prevent the same from happening to other parents.
One would think Wetterling and her supporters would favor an honest, positive, issues-driven campaign. Nope. Apparently a sterling personal resume and fortuitous circumstances aren't sufficient. The ways in which Wetterling and her supporters have campaigned over the past six weeks stink to high heaven. Last week, a field organizer attempted to infiltrate the Bachmann campaign with a deceptive email, and was properly fired. Back in September, Wetterling produced an ad that took Bachmann's tepid support for a national sales tax totally out of context, not mentioning that the tax would replace many other taxes, and closing with the snide comment that Minnesota can't afford a politician like Bachmann...."
.... forget that....it's the bloggers' fault.
I totally agree with the statement above in City Pages. Her campaign was contacted by many to try to change course but they wouldn't listen. We on the ground heard the voters loud and clear, the campaign chose to turn their hearing aids off.
Kate
Candidates coast to coasts won on opposition to the war. Wetterling was one of the first candidates to declare a deadline for getting the hell out of Iraq. That was last year. When did you ever hear that again in an ad? Instead, we get garbage ads on Bachmann's easiest-to-defend votes courtesy of the DCCC and the Wetterling campaign leadership. Kate's right--lots of us offered ideas to their campaign. Mine never even got an e-mail acknowledgement.
Karl
Here in NY-19, that YouTube video definitely helped defeat Sue Kelly, a six-term incumbent who was never listed on any of the top target lists. The reason? Because it reinforced the idea that she was out of touch with her voters -- she wouldn't debate, she didn't publish her schedule, she even stopped responding to letters from constituents.
Take19
Patty Wetterling's campaign fizzled just like it did against Mark Kennedy. Because of her poor showing in the 2004 election, I was not especially enthusiastic about her reentry into this election. I think Elwyn Tinklenberg would have run a better and stronger campaign and would have won.
But from the get-go, the people who dominated were the people who showed up for caucuses in March and in the Sixth District there are fewer of such people than in more densely populated areas. Those people favored Patty Wetterling and so she won the endorsement. I don't think there were enough of those supporters to carry the campaign. This was true at my caucus in Washington county, where only about six people showed up as well as the later Congressional caucus. In the end, the Wetterling campaign was begging for volunteers.
To me, that was more of a sign that the people who are active in campagns and care about campaign are likely to be more well informed and doctrinaire liberal on issues than people who do not become involved. I don't think having more volunteers working on the Wetterling campaign would have made much of a difference given the way the rest of the campaign was run. Patty's campaign failed to address any issues, as Karl mentioned. I think Patty herself was probably uncomfortable with discussing a lot of the issues outside her area of child safety.
This is not to say that a "liberal" candidate cannot get elected in the Sixth District. In the Sixth, any Democratic candidate is going to have to outline solutions for the problems which mostly suburban independent voters see as affecting their lives. I don't think it's a liberal/conservative thing as much as a strategy-results idea. Most voters in the Sixth I'd guess are "independent" voters who decide who to vote for in the last week before the election. They have no time for caucuses, politics and volunteering in campaigns. That's why you see people talking about the "Democrats" as if there is some big Democrat party Inc. manufacturing candidates for them to decide rather than concerned people taking time out of their busy lives to run for office and campaign. people see themselves as consumers of candidates rather than citizens and voters who have a duty and stake in running the country. I'm not saying that that's right. That's the way it is.
jonerik
I think you hit the nail on the head about voters in ht 6th being consumers of candidates. A question for you. How do you think the 6th would deal with someone that wants to take time out of their busy life, someone that is virtually unknown to run for office? Some one not of the status quo? Even someone that is gay?
I feel there needs to be some excitement, a grass roots candidate like a Tim Walz. The question is where do you find himm/her?
Kate
|
|