Should incumbents put ‘re-elect’ on their yard signs?

[audio:|titles=Should incumbents put ‘reelect’ on their yard sign]

4 thoughts on “Should incumbents put ‘re-elect’ on their yard signs?

  1. heyjude  Nope, you’re welcome to skip the words ‘elect’ or ‘for.’ In fact, many times it can be a really good idea.

  2. Do yard signs have to say “elect” or “for” whatever office the candidate is seeking? example “John Smith For town council” or can they simply say “John Smith Town Council” ?

  3. @CrazyComposer I’m saying that candidates should get the lay of the political land, take stock of themselves, and then put their best foot forward. If the political environment isn’t friendly to incumbents, then an incumbent candidate should position him or herself in a way that demonstrates their independent streak or that they aren’t an insider.

    I look at it this way. If you were applying for a job, which is essentially what a candidate is doing over and over again, would you emphasize your work history that shows that you are a good fit for the position or would you concentrate on your work history that’s either irrelevant (I think your view, for example, was that voting against someone because they are an incumbent is pathetic) or your work history that didn’t cast you in the best possible light? I think you would focus on why your the best candidate for the job and leave the rest out.

    I’m suggesting that candidates for elected office do the same.

  4. So, essentially you’re saying that an incumbents should intentionally practice a form of deceptive advertising in their attempts to get re-elected? That is what they’re doing, after all, isn’t it? Seeking RE-ELECTION – asking for another term in office – having been there before. Putting something else on the sign, or omitting the word “re-elect” is, in essence, lying about what or who they are – and says a great deal about the character of the politician in question. It should be a requirement that advertising for political campaigns have to be 100% honest – including whether or not the individual is seeking election or re-election. There is a difference, that’s why there is a word for it.

    Using the argument that people are voting against incumbents, by the way, is next to pathetic. If a candidate is that afraid of the electorate, they shouldn’t be running for office. A candidate must be willing to engage the voters and defend their record. If it isn’t worth defending, they won’t get (ready for it? -) re-elected (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.