You may well be right Tob. I'm just bitter because my state rep (John Lawless) is a total S.O.B., and he won yesterday by 300 votes, and it cannot be explained by anything other than mindless button-pushing and Rendell coattails.

This despite the Republicans running a decent alternative, a woman even, and sending out four very high-quality pieces informing everyone exactly what a total S.O.B. this guy is.

But I don't even have a sister!!

This is a clear case of discrimination. I think I should get $1,000,000 to help me through my emotional suffering.

I generally vote Democratic, yet voted for my state rep, who is a Republican...and this sorta ties into what Tob mentioned in his post. Dennis O'Brien seems like a decent enough guy, and things are fine in the far Northeast...of course, it didn't hurt that he had no opponents either. :) But truth be told, the primary reason I voted for him was b/c he helped Rho in battling the Unemployment Claims bureau earlier this year.

I do think that people should know who the candidates are before you vote, but at the same time, I agree with Tob on this:

and this:

That being said, I think we'd all be better off if there was less negative campaigning. I'd rather hear a candidate say, "Here's what I want to do" or "Here's where I stand on this" (and this is what I liked about Ken Krawchuk...he lays it out nice and neat). I'm tired of the whole "Bob Jones doesn't care about America...in 1980, he threw puppies off his 4th floor balcony" shit.

In my opinion, this <i>is</i> what happens. Most of the people who vote are old timers. Have you seen the issues politicians put up on their webpages? It's all things that old people care about. They're pretty much picking our politicians for us, because they're the only ones who vote.

Welp, since the next election will have new rules, perhaps the next election will be more issues-oriented, and the voters can signal exactly what they want in a clear way that results in responsive government.

*snort*

On the other hand, maybe I take it all back. Maybe it's better if the government isn't so damn responsive.

We have a fast-growing elderly population...one that will swell with the retirement of the baby boomers. Of course those issues are going to take center stage.

A new manifesto on the elections is forthcoming...

The last result I saw this morning had Crahalla ahead by 60 votes. She was at our polling place, and we had the opportunity to talk with her for a while. I hope you're wrong about Lawless winning. Lemme go check again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov-06-2002 03:45 PM Eastern Standard Time

PA State House District 150
Precincts Reporting: 24 Of 24 100%
<pre>
Winner Candidate Party Incumbent Votes Vote %
X Jacqueline Crahalla Republican 8,702 50%
John Lawless Democrat X 8,639 50%
</pre>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've confirmed this at the county website and the Philly Inquirer sites, as well as at kywonline.com . Are you seeing something different reported somewhere else, Tony? I have a congratulations letter all set to mail...

Wow. I don't know what happened, but the department of state website had Lawless losing as of noon today, a trend that had been on all night. Now he's lost by about 80.

Well ok then! I take it back! The voters are sensible.

Not always-- they elected Rendell. :-)

Tony, you STILL bitter over Lawless? Well, hopefully those results will cheer you up...unless he calls up 30 lawyers and demands a recount in selected precincts. :)

As far as the gubernatorial election, it's my opinion that the best man won, but I might...might...be biased. :)

On a serious tip, usually, I find myself picking the "least worst." And granted there was some mud-slinging (which went incredibly quiet about 3 weeks ago), but overall, I found the 3 main candidates to be relatively decent folk...which seems to be a rarity these days.

Still. Recently Mr. Lawless was involved in a routine traffic stop, and he pulled a "Don't you know who I am" on the trooper, and it turned into a Minor Incident.

You know, the legislative nonsense I could almost write off as just throwing a wrench into the system. But I have a zero-tolerance policy this kind of power-play nonsense.

We may be better off, but negative campaigns win elections. People say they're sick of negativity, but the fact is that those negative ads do have an impact, and that's why they're used. They have to be done right -- poorly-designed negative campaigns can easily backfire -- but they do bring home results.

It's a standard formula. Start out building name recognition and telling people why you're qualified. And raising money. Then, near the end, you spend that money by attacking the other guy. Especially if you're running against an incumbent; you have to give people a reason to change.

And when was the last time Republicans controlled the entire government? 1910 or something like that? How many cumulative years in the past century did Democrats control it? At least several dozen?

If the United States is a desolate, barren, smoldering wasteland in 2004, with gestapo police on every corner and mandatory right-wing propaganda played from PA systems in all government buildings, then you can say "I told you so."

Don't mind him. He's from Arkansas.

:)