In the recent election’s advertising, I’ve seen a complete lack of party identification. The Republican and Democratic candidates for state legislature and local races don’t identify their party. And while I think few people don’t know the parties of the candidates for governor, they don’t seem to mention their party either. You can find out their party on their website, but all of their advertising seems to avoid mentioning it.
It might be because I’m in the district that sent Wendy Davis to the state senate, but I haven’t seen much “Republican for X” advertising. Before this season, if a candidate in Texas didn’t mention their party, they were probably a Democrat. Are people seeing this in other areas besides mine? Also, do you think this shows a weakening of the two party system?
I think “Republican” and “Democrat” labels are starting to turn away voters in an era of vicious partisanship. It’s like how “right-wing” and “left-wing” sound bad.
Hmmm, I noticed this too in California. With state politicians and with crongress people. Only at the end of an ad will it give away by saying something like, “Paid for by Republicans who eat pumpkin pie.” And of course their party was listed on the ballot. (I do mail in.)
I kind of suspect that there’s some lingering distaste for the recent antics of the Texas Republican party as exemplified by knuckleheads like Ted Cruz and Rick Perry. So they’re not explicitly pointing that out, in case someone might just go “That Abbott guy sounds ok… but he’s like Ted Cruz, so f**k that.”
In addition, there’s no real upside to pointing out that Wendy Davis is a Democrat; there’s some possibility that some ignorant folks might vote for her, not knowing that she’s a Democrat, and little danger that anyone wanting to vote Democrat isn’t going to confuse Greg Abbott with one either.
I was in Florida for two weeks visiting for from the UK. Not only did I notice that there was no party identification, the slanting of the bile and venom often seemed to be neutral or against expectation. Democrats characterised as tax cutting and Republicans as wastrel of the public purse, Democrats as anti public education and Republicans as centralisers.
It’s easy to see why one party might omit mention of their affiliation (in areas where the other party is stronger), but why would both parties do it? Surely, they don’t both view themselves as being the weaker of the two?
Strangely enough, and based on nothing but my hunch, I can see how this might happen. These days, many folks of all political persuasions are mad that “nothing is getting done” in government (especially, but not only, at the federal level); some blame the (D-controlled) executive branch, others the majority party of either house of Congress, others the minority party of either house of Congress – and some folks blame them ALL.
To capture the greatest number of such voters, it might make sense in some races to downplay party affiliation altogether. It certainly will be interesting to see how, for example, Greg Orman’s results are analyzed post-election (he’s running for a Kansas senate seat as an “independent” – and, while his win would represent a tilt leftward from the current Republican in that seat, he has said he will caucus with whichever party ends up with the majority.)
Or in MA. They all, *all *claim to be “independent” and “bipartisan” “leaders” who can “work across the aisle to get things done”. The Dem candidates have to keep reminding voters of their Republicanism.
Much of the advertising that I see relies heavily on trying to identify the candidate with their most hated opponent, and thus focuses strongly on the party affiliation of the opposing candidate and the various scummy leaders whose identical twins they are apparently are.
I guess it’s true that few ads say “Vote for Republican Joe Blow …”, but so many of them refer to “The Obama-Reid-Shmoe Democrats” that the party identification of Joe Blow is pretty obvious.
Most of the printed materials will mention a party somewhere, but it’s after we find out that the person empathizes with old people, had a daughter get married last year, and thinks farmers are nice folk.
In TV ads, when I hear references to party, it seems like it’s most often in the attack ads. “My opponent kicks puppies… and he’s a Republican too!”
Ok, than this isn’t a nationwide trend, then. The printed materials and T.V. ads pretty much completely eliminate any mention of the party. I really do have to visit their website, and then poke around some to find the party affiliation.
This used to be standard for the Democrats here, which isn’t surprising, since they were the weaker party. Republicans here were more than happy to identify themselves as Republicans for as long as I’ve been paying attention. The fact that no-one is trumpeting their party affiliation here at all is a big change.
I don’t know if it’s due to Republicans trying to distance themselves from their crazy angle, or trying to garner Libertarian and moderate Dem votes by leaving things vague, or if the politicians think the state’s become nearly as purple as Florida. It is a change from the past in TX politics.
In Alabama you always see the Republicans touting party affiliation, but in the last 12 years or so most Democrats act like thay have no party affiliation.
I receive Mark Kirk’s newletter, I have never seen him identify as a Republican. I’ve received John Coryn’s and John McCain’s newsletters and both regularly mention their party identification.
Noticed it in Colorado, and it made for an intersting thought experiment. After a couple of ads you can kinda put together a composite of what each candidate is about based on what the smear is on the the other guy, and on what they say about themselves in their sales ad.
It seems a little sad that it’s that easy, and that neither candidate is willing to associate strongly with their party’s brand.