November 8, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Fame game
The saddest commentary on this election is how uncompetitive many of the races were. I'm not just talking about things like that Berkely district where the Republican got 6% of the vote. I'm talking about New York, where until I actually looked at their names on the ballot, I couldn't remember who was running against Hilary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer. And the reason that I couldn't remember the name of Hilary's opponent is that I had never heard it.
I felt bad about myself, momentarily, for being uninformed. Then I remembered what a colossal waste of time it would have been to memorize the name and campaign platform of a man doomed to obscurity and failure before he ever got the nomination. It is kinder, really, to forget any of this ever happened. And how better to forget than never to have remembered in the first place?
It does remind you, though, how much fame matters in our elections. Even before Jeanine Pirro's ethics problems surfaced, she had a herculean task running against Andrew Cuomo, whose father everyone remembers as governor. I often wonder how much those millionaire candidates actually get out of their spending--as opposed to the media coverage that puts their name in every household.
Of course, Republicans may take comfort in thinking that voters like fame more than, say, higher minimum wages.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 8, 2006 10:15 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"Of course, Republicans may take comfort in thinking that voters like fame more than, say, higher minimum wages."
Wouldn't be the first time repubs took comfort from fantasy. Menendez is for a higher minimum wage while Junior Kean is famous (for having his famous father's name). George Allen, Jr. is (in)famous while Webb is for a higher minimum wage (although he is also famous). Santorum was famous while Casey is for a higher minimum wage.
If you had specific example of your proposition in mind, maybe you could cite them?
@AA: How about "Those races were closer than they would have been if people didn't like fame so much."?
Aaron Adams, you missed one other thing all those people had in common. The ones with the "D" next to their name won, and the ones with the "R" lost. Given that the issue of the minimum wage has been around for decades and Republicans still managed to be the incumbent in most of those races, isn't it at least as likely that people went out to vote against Republicans this year, rather than some sudden change of heart on an issue that only affects a few percent of the population?
Jane,
Upstate, we had heard the names of the Republican candidates. You can find plenty of lawn signs for them. And everyone who put up those signs knew it was an exercise in futility. The fact that Hevesi was re-elected says it all. He won because he was the incumbent and because he's a Democrat. It certainly wasn't because his ethics were above reproach.
Shouldn't we be talking about Britney Spears' decision to unload Kevin Federline?
Isn't that more culturally significant than which party controls Congress?
Hillary's opponent is a buffoon from Yonkers. I voted for Hillary because she was a better choice. Now if only we could get better challengers to our sitting senators ...
I'm excited about all the successful minimum wage ballot initiatives and the fact that we are looking at a hike in the minimum at the Federal level. Not because I support an increase, but because we'll have good, solid data to study and we can stop this silly "uh-huh!" "nuh-uh!" debate over the effects and propriety of hiking the minimum wage.
I almost wish I were an economist so I could become an official minimum-wage pundit.
I don't see the value in knowing the names of candidates who have no relevancy.
I also don't see the value in uninformed people voting, either, so perhaps I'm unusual.
"I'm not just talking about things like that Berkely district where the Republican got 6% of the vote."
6%? Hah! Loooxury, lass! In the Colorado 1st, the Republicans didn't even bother to run a candidate, so the Republican got 0%; instead it was a fight (not so much) between the Democrat, incumbent Diana DeGette, and the Green Party candidate (who got a fairly healthy 21%).
Seconding Gary Farber, check out the race in Detroit for the 13th District in the House of Congreess.
Carolyn Cheeks ("Representative for life") Kilpatrick in Detroit - 126,100 votes out of the 126,100 votes cast -- she got 100% of the vote.
Now that's uncompetitive.
"I've got a baaaaaaad feeling that we're going to be suffering buyer's remorse by spring . . ."
If you don't like the choices, you can easily change them. Stop complaining and do something. Run yourself, help the local candidate, put up signs, do something!
Voting Democrat and complaining a few days later is useless.
Sorry Jane, but as a Libertarian, you suck.
Comments are Closed.