‘It’s all junk mail!’
Political flyers may be junk mail to most, but candidates still rely on them
The distance between my home’s mailbox and the recycling bin next to my garage is the perfect amount of space to browse through a political flyer before trashing it.
Political candidates must know this election season truth, yet they continue to flood our mailboxes with slickly produced flyers stamped with their name, party affiliation and campaign promises. I guess it’s better than planting a campaign sign on our front lawn, though it makes me wonder how effective these traditions turn out on Election Day.
“Politicians may have a greater need to communicate than almost every other profession, but that doesn’t mean they’re good at it,” said Frank Luntz, a political analyst who authored the book, “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.”
The latest political flyer I received in the mail wasn’t for a politician, but for a referendum.
“Vikings Vote Yes!” it states, seeking support for Election Day renewal of a 2015 referendum for Valparaiso Community Schools.
Its bullet points cite the importance of maintaining appropriate class sizes, sustaining quality education, retaining teachers, and preserving the city’s quality of life. I already knew how I would vote on this referendum, but I also browsed through this flyer for any additional info before recycling it. (And taking a photo of it.)
“It’s all junk mail!” an elderly neighbor of mine yelled from across the street.
He emptied his mailbox, sorted through the same political flyers I received, and angrily tossed them into the trash bin. He didn’t read one word on any of them. When I asked why, he replied, “Because I can’t trust what they say, just like politicians.”
Last month, a reader from Portage contacted me with similar suspicions.
“Personally, when these
mailings come to my house
I give it a quick glance and pitch it in the garbage. If it’s a letter, I take the time to read it,” she said. “I wonder just what percentage of people are really influenced by these mailers that come from politicians.”
A very low percentage, I’ve determined. But most candidates are desperate for name awareness when voters walk into their polling place on Election Day. This is why another tradition has candidates and their supporters greeting voters at polling places. One last handshake, one more opportunity to remind voters of their name and race.
Campaign billboards have the same purpose. Candidates stick them in every possible front lawn, empty corner or friendly business, quietly planting their names in our collective conscious with hopes that voters will remember them on Election Day.
Last week while at the Lake County Government Complex in Crown Point, I saw dozens of campaign signs planted by the entrance. There were so many of them that I didn’t notice a single candidate’s sign or name as I drove past. But it got me thinking about the proximity of campaign signs to candidates who have less than reputable reputations.
It reminded me of a Quickly contributor’s submission: “Just a quick word to all the local candidates: If I see your election sign in the same yard as a bunch of MAGA garbage and/or a Confederate flag, I’m not voting for you.”
This is an election season extension of the political extremism that permeates our country. Guilt by campaign sign affiliation? Candidates who align with pro-Donald Trump allegiances surely know there could be a ballot box backlash. Or possibly it’s the name-recognition boost they’re looking for.
Is this where we are in regard to local campaign races? Despite voters’ insistence that they elect their chosen candidates only after extensive research, meaningful endorsements or face-toface meetings, I don’t believe it for a second. Most voters make their Election Day selections based on who they personally know or name-recognition or party allegiance. And, of course, mudslinging.
For the past few weeks, I’ve heard from supporters of candidates with wild allegations against their political opponents.
“Have you seen this candidate’s campaign manager?” asks an email from a foe of one candidate in Porter County. “He has been arrested several times for gun violations, theft, and many other things! Voters should be notified of this. It’s the job of the media!”
Truth is, that campaign manager isn’t running for public office. He’s simply supporting one of the candidates. If we investigated every supporter of every candidate, journalists would unearth a cemetery of skeletons, secrets and shady characters.
For decades, public policy researchers have studied the consequences of so-called “horse race” election coverage — journalists focusing primarily on whether political candidates are ahead or behind in the polls, rather than on their policy stances. In short, scholars have found this is bad for voters, candidates and the news industry itself, according to a new analysis compiled by The Journalist’s Resource.
One specific type of horserace reporting, “probabilistic forecasting,” was explored.
“The researchers find that probabilistic forecasting discourages voting — some people decide not to vote when their preferred candidate has very high odds of winning or losing. They also find this type of horse-race reporting is more prominent in news outlets with left-leaning audiences.”
We know that voter turnout for this midterm May primary will be low, but for those of us casting a ballot Tuesday, we should do more homework instead of relying on hunches, old habits or gossipy tidbits about candidates.
Political flyers and campaign signs do little to educate us. They’re designed to catch our attention, plant a seed in our mind and offer us an opportunity to do more research.
Unfortunately, most voters do their “research” between the mailbox and recycling bin.