On candidate statements and the writing thereof: An open, non-partisan letter

[missroserose]

Dear Arizona (and everywhere else) political candidates:

I don't care which party you're affiliated with or what position you're running for, but for the love of all that is holy, when you're writing your candidate statements, please don't:

• Refer to vague bogeymen such as "special interest groups".  What does that even mean?  Be specific.
• Trash your predecessor, especially over things that weren't their fault.  That's just bad form.
• PUT PHRASES OR ENTIRE SENTENCES in all caps.  Every fourteen-year-old Internet user knows not to do that if you want to be taken seriously.
• Make the entire thing a string of cliches.  We've all heard the slogans; this is your chance to stand out.

Instead, try these:

• Tell us about your qualifications for the job, be they education-based or experience-based.
• Talk about verifiable, concrete accomplishments - preferably ones you personally contributed to, not just your party.
• Tell us why you're interested in running for office.
• Give us some of your goals for your district/state, both short and long term.

Yes, I realize this is only going to appeal to the minority of voters who actually try to make informed, nonpartisan decisions, but do you really think the people who respond to fearmongering and sloganeering are going to bother to read your statements anyway?  Every vote helps, and that includes smart peoples', too.

Comments

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

The meaning of "special interest groups" is easy: "the people I disagree with but don't want to identify because it'll cost me some votes and maybe even some campaign contributions from those groups".

What I'm waiting for is to see whether the US voters will vote for as President an investment banker with a record of shipping jobs overseas to try to improve a problem that was caused in part by investment banking.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think it's really unlikely. Momentum alone is usually enough to keep the incumbent in office unless [a] things are really awful or [b] the challenger presents an extremely compelling alternative. (Which is generally *why* the batch of candidates in off years are so bad - the ones whom the party thinks actually have a chance are advised to wait for the next term so as not to be seen as already defeated.) While things are far from great, Obama's scored enough coups in foreign policy (and kept things from getting much worse at home) that I imagine he can win against a dude who frankly doesn't seem to understand how to connect with human beings.

[joyfulleigh.livejournal.com]

Wow, I totally disagree. I think you underestimate the "we hate Obama" camp. They don't love Romney, it's true, but I hear the "anybody would be better than Obama" refrain loud and incessantly. I think Romney's going to win most of the swing states and come away victorious.

At which point I will die a little inside.

L.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

I think you're overestimating at least a little bit - of course the overemotional minority are going to make for the loudest voices. And you *do* live in Virginia. :) I could be wrong, but history does show that it's very unusual for a president to not win a second term. That's why Carter's the go-to example for Republicans calling to oust an incumbent; he was the last Democratic incumbent to not be reelected, and that was back in the 70s. (I think George H.W. was the last incumbent, but that was still more than two decades ago.)

ETA: Almost two decades ago. 1993. Hurr durr. Math is hard. Derp.

[joyfulleigh.livejournal.com]

I hope you're right! You've gotta think that if Bush can get re-elected, with all the negativity about his intelligence and leadership, then certainly Obama could. I'm glad you are more hopeful than I am. Virginia may be skewing my viewpoint, it's true.

L.

[ivy]

Every vote helps, and that includes smart peoples', too.

Hahaha. I can't help but wonder if somehow it is conferring a stats advantage to take the stupid vague route. Does being specific and helpful lose them more votes than it gains them somehow?

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

It's certainly a possibility, especially when it comes to talking points - your opponents can't nail you down on a point if they can't figure out what your point is. But you also risk alienating voters by being seen as too vague and undefined, or even worse, being unmemorable. It's a tricky balance to strike, appealing to as many people as possible.