Fun with campaign signs: On the cheap edition

One of the regular occurrences of any campaign season is the sighting of a "write-in" candidate.

They're just like regular candidates, except they aren't on the ballot and (usually) have no money.

Most write-in candidates "campaign" by asking friends to vote for them; a few, however, have some limited financial resources and will try to campaign more traditionally, say, by putting up some signs.

One of the ways that campaigns with limited resources try to save money is to have signs that are only printed on one side.

Another way that campaigns (all campaigns, not just those of write-in candidates) look to save money is by using rebar as sign posts; it's less sturdy than the normally-used fence posts, but it's also less costly.

All of which is fine...until the downsides of one-sided and rebar combine -

Found at the SE corner of Rural and Baseline in Tempe

The other side of the sign -

The candidate on the sign, Joe Hui, is an official write-in candidate for Corporation Commission.


Bonus "Fun with campaign signs":

I live in one of the few Democratic-leaning legislative districts in Maricopa County (LD24), which means that we see the Republican candidates who run on the "Republican?  Who me?" platform -

Found at McDowell and Hayden in Scottsdale

This sign is so effective that if I hadn't already voted for Katie Hobbs and returned my ballot, I would...still vote for her.  I don't have a high opinion of Democrats who triangulate and
run for office as "Republican-lite", but I'm fair about it - I don't have a high opinion of Republicans who run as "Democrat-lite", either.

Plus she is AWESOME. :)


Bonus2:  Dear...well, *everyone* -

Spell check is your friend.   Whether you are a candidate/campaign, or an anti-candidate/anti-campaign, whether it is a website, press release, campaign lit, or street sign, or something else, proof read everything before you send it out.

Including stickers that you attach to a candidate's signs -

Found at McDowell and Hayden in Scottsdale.

Ignoring the "vandalized sign" part of this picture, for now (that's a possible class 2 misdemeanor), there are two stickers now affixed to the sign.  One is easy to see - "communist".  Pretty sure it isn't true, but it isn't as much fun as the other sticker -

I think that they (whoever "they" may be) are trying to accuse Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of being an "atheist" here.

Not sure what an "athiest" is, though.

Fun with campaign signs: Reinforcing choices

A little while back, I posted my choices/recommendations on the three statewide ballot questions going before Arizona voters this year (No on 122 and 303, the questions sent to the ballot by the legislature, and Yes on 304, the legislative pay raise).

At the time, I didn't have anything specific to point at to support my opposition to 303, just a general feeling of distrust of the people behind the measure, the Goldwater Institute.

Now I have some more specifics.

And am even more firmly opposed to it.

First up:  Another committee has been formed to support the measure.



If the name "Laura Knaperek" rings a bell, it should - she's a former legislator who became an industry lobbyist after her time in the lege.  Which industry?  Whichever one is paying her today.

Second up: Signs that show that the neo-secessionists that support Prop 122 are supporting Prop 303 -

On the west side of Pima Road in Scottsdale, between Via de Ventura and Indian Bend Road

Closer -

And the "Paid for by" -

Any other questions?

Fun with campaign signs: Spell check edition

It's unusual here in AZ, but on occasion, when a major party candidate runs in a district that favors the other major party, the candidate facing a steep partisan headwind is a Republican.

One of the favorite tactics in such a situation is to minimize their partisan affiliation.

James Roy is the Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD26 (Tempe, west Mesa, Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community).  In terms of voter registration, it's not an overwhelmingly Democratic district; in terms of results it is.

As such, it has become difficult for the Republicans there to recruit candidates.  This year, Mr. Roy is the sole R candidate for two House seats in the district.

I don't know if he a "warm body" candidate or if he deliberately was recruited to "take one for the team" in an almost unwinnable district while learning to run a campaign.

If the second one is the reason behind his candidacy, well, he has a lot to learn.

One basic lesson: read proofs before giving approval to the printer.

"Rebuplican"?  Really?

On the sign, Roy talks about getting "the job done".

The meaning of that phrase is rather vague, but one thing is clear, the "job" doesn't include checking spelling.

On the plus side, at least he spelled "Arizonan" correctly.

Wouldn't want to run for office as an "Arinozan"...

Fun with campaign signs: Recycling edition

...And not the "green" kind of recycling, either...

One of the habits of campaigns is to not throw out *anything* that could be used in a subsequent campaign - office supplies, signs, t-shirts, whatever.

Generally speaking, frugality can be a good thing.  However, it can be taken too far sometimes.

Example - Rep. Jeff Dial (R - LD18):

Looks pretty standard - candidate name and office, and as a bonus, it even has a "Voted for Obamacare" attack sign posted next to it (it's an R primary thing - they hate the president so much that they are campaigning by linking their opponents to Barack Obama in any way that they can; it's fun to see in a two-way race when both sides engage in race-baiting mud-slinging).

It took me a second to realize that there was something "different" about this sign, and another couple of seconds to figure out what it was.

See the bottom, where it says "Republican for State Representative"?

From the AZSOS' candidate listing page -

 In other words, the sign is all about putting his name out there - his name is a huge part of the sign, while the office is in (relatively) tiny print.  People driving by will notice the name, but not the office.

Annoying bloggers with cameras, on the other hand... :)

Another dead giveaway that the sign is from an earlier campaign is the weathering.  The front side (the side facing the street) above isn't too bad; many signs, even new ones, are showing indications of exposure to the elements in AZ).

The back side, however, shows the sign's age very clearly -

Just a guess here, but it seems that Dial stored the signs from his previous campaigns outside...and this one was directly exposed to the weather.

Fun with campaign signs: a bit of a mystery edition

At this point in an election cycle, it's not unusual for campaigns to have lost some of their signs. 

Sometimes they lose them to "dirty tricks" by other campaigns; sometimes they lose signs because they were placed on private property and the property owner took them down; sometimes they lose them to random (or not-so-random) passers-by who decide that they don't like a particular candidate or campaign signs in general and take unilateral action to express that dislike.

In the cases of dirty tricks or random passers-by, there is usually evidence left behind in the form of vacant sign posts and damaged signs on the ground.

In the cases of property owners, frequently (but not always) *everything* - signs, posts, etc. - is gone.

Which make what I spotted at the NW corner of McDowell and Hayden all the more curious.

The signs were down, but appeared to be undamaged other than normal wear and tear.

However, the posts that held up the signs were completely *gone* (note the holes in the ground with nothing in them) -

There were a few signs present on the corner -

Not sure if those were repaired/replaced or just weren't touched in the first place.

Normally, when signs go missing for  reasons other than a property owner taking them down, it looks like the NE corner of Granite Reef and McDowell (approximately 1/2 mile east of the signs above) -

I might have chalked this one to the property owner (there's a 7-11 on this corner), but there are other signs on the corner -

The downed signs may have fallen due to deliberate acts, or may have been downed by the weather that the Phoenix area experienced this week.

However, either way, they were still *there*.


If anyone knows, or has a good guess at, what happened with the signs at the beginning of this post (signs OK, sign posts gone), please leave a comment or send me an email at cpmaz@yahoo.com.  I'm genuinely curious...

Fun with campaign signs - placement edition

I've helped place enough campaign signs to know that there are a few unwritten rules; not legal requirements, not "official" in any way, and certainly not absolute, but usually followed by most campaigns -

1.  Don't mess with the signs of other campaigns (every cycle, this one gets ignored by a few people, yet, in a funny way, those few exceptions illustrate how the vast majority of campaigns follow this one.  There is a bit of disincentive here in the sign tampering law, but violations earn just a wrist slap; more effective are the principles of "do unto others..." and "what goes around, comes around").

2.  Don't block the signs of other campaigns (this one gets tougher as the cycle grinds on, but mostly because so many signs go up that it becomes almost impossible to find a spot with clean sight lines; physics, not malice, at work).

3.  Don't block non-political and permanent signs (the reason for this post).

I live in Scottsdale, a place that is so "special" that every couple of years, there is a movement to ban "unsightly" political signs as being detrimental to the image of Scottsdale.

Some call the idea "good", some call it "incumbent protection".

Most people with more than three active brain cells call it "unconstitutional" on free speech grounds.

Political signs have been restricted for safety reasons (none in medians, no blocking of sight lines at corners, etc.), but that's it.


Still, you'd think that candidates running to represent all or part of Scottsdale would at least be aware of the tender sensibilities.

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.

At the NW corner of Pima and Chaparral roads in Scottsdale -

OK, this doesn't look too bad, right?  There's a least four feet of clearance between the "Auerbach for City Council" sign and the "Welcome To Scottsdale" sign.

From a perspective of someone who can get close and analyze the signs (like a pedestrian), not bad at all.

However, signs aren't placed at busy intersections to catch the eye of pedestrians (and in most of Scottsdale, that would be a waste of time and effort anyway); they're put there to be seen by people passing by in cars.

So, the same corner, from across the intersection, viewed more as a driver than a pedestrian -

Hmmm.

"Welcome To"..."Auerbach"?


The situation regarding the "Welcome To Scottsdale" signs is even worse at other intersections.  For example:  NW corner of Pima and Indian Bend -

There's a reason that the anti-sign movement in Scottsdale never goes away.  This ---- is one of the reasons for that.


Note to readers:  Some sharp-eyed folks may notice the absence of signs of Democratic candidates in the pictures above.  That's not deliberate on my part; there just aren't any at these intersections.  Also, it's Scottsdale - other than the statewide candidates and the LD24 candidates (which stretches into Scottsdale south of Oak), there's only one D on the ballot, Paula Pennypacker for State Senate.

Even the most "moderate" candidates in the (allegedly) non-partisan city council race are pro-developer/chamber of commerce Republicans who are or have been members of the AZGOP's state committee.

Note2:  The unwritten rules only apply to not *messing* with other candidates' signs; there's no requirement to *help* other candidates (especially opposition candidates) either -

I didn't take down the Tom Horne sign and don't know anything about who did, but sure as hell didn't do anything to put it back up either.

Fun with campaign signs - Hallman Edition

Hugh Hallman, a former mayor of Tempe, is showing his "not ready for prime time" status with his current campaign signs.

This year, he's running for Arizona State Treasurer against two other Rs (no Democratic candidates are in the race, so that one will be decided in the R primary).

State treasurer is a low-profile position, so low profile that even knowledgeable activists don't know much about it.  And average voters?

They might know the job exists, but not much else.

And it appears that Hallman is looking to take advantage of that ignorance with misleading campaign signs -

The problem with this sign (and he has the same verbiage on his website)?

Other than period pilgrimages over to the lege to beg lobby for a bigger chunk of it, the state treasurer has almost NOTHING to do with the state's budget.

The budget is within the purview of the legislature, and they aren't giving up that one; the only reason that they pay any attention to the governor regarding the budget is because of the governor's veto power.

The state treasurer doesn't have that, so is ignored.

However, the average voter doesn't know the nitty-gritty of Arizona governance, so we get signs like this.

Fun With Campaign Signs 2014: Chapter 1

Could someone explain to me how President Obama and the Arizona Corporation Commission* intersect?


From the ACC's website:

In most states, the Commission is known as the Public Service Commission or the Public Utility Commission. Our Commission, however, has responsibilities that go beyond traditional public utilities regulation. These additional roles include facilitating the incorporation of businesses and organizations, securities regulation and railroad/pipeline safety.

* - Check out the (relatively) very small print at the bottom of the sign.  Forese and Little are running for seats on the ACC.  Though based on the priorities indicated by their signs, working *for* the people of Arizona is not their top priority.

Fun with campaign signs, part III

In the race for LD24, the Republican candidates are using these signs -

Ummm..."voteAuggie.com" isn't going to be listed as a candidate on any ballot.  Kind of defeats the purpose of paying for and putting up signs, which are all about pumping up name recognition. 

Now, if instead of pushing a candidate for office, it was about pushing the sale of mattresses or audio equipment out of the back of a truck, maybe the sign would be more effective.

Just sayin'...

Fun with campaign signs, part 2

Spotted in Scottsdale on July 28 -

Three of the candidates in Scottsdale; not going to vote for any of them, but those are some sharp looking signs - simple, colorful, and eye-catching.

The signs are two-sided, which isn't unusual, but they have different candidates on the opposite sides of the signs.  Which is very unusual.

A bit of an explanation for the similarity of the signs - all three signs have the same "paid for by" line on them.

Interestingly, the PAC that paid for the signs formed on July 24, filed the paperwork on July 27, and had signs designed, printed, and up by July 28?  Even saying that the committee was OK to operate on the 24th (a point in the law that I couldn't get clarification on today, being a Sunday and all :) ), four days to design the signs, contract with a printer, get the signs printed, accept delivery of the signs, and actually put some up, well, that is incredibly fast.

Either they were paying for some serious OT at the printer (which is OK) or they accepted and expended funds on election-influencing activities before the committee was formed, legally speaking (not so OK).

One of the other campaigns may find this something worth looking into.

Of course, the signs may not last long during the Arizona monsoon season -

 No grommets.  The first strong breeze will cause the wires holding up the signs to slice through the signs.

Later...

Fun with campaign signs; part 1

One of the traditions of campaign season is campaign signs. 

One of the traditions with campaign signs is that there are mistakes, mishaps, and just plain game-playing with campaign signs.

And one of my traditions?  Writing about the mistakes, mishaps, and game-playing with signs.  :)

It's early still, generally the "fun with campaign signs" period starts after the primary, but occasionally there are some enterprising folks who like to get a head start on things, like -

Yes, underneath that gang tagging (at least, I think it is gang-related), is a sign from the rather infamous Lester Pearce, a candidate for county supervisor in District 2 (most of Mesa, Scottsdale, and northeastern Maricopa County).

This sign was on the SE corner of Pima Road and McDowell Road, at the border of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the City of Scottsdale.

I say "was" because the sign is gone now, not because of the tagging but because the sign was placed on SRPMIC land.

A call to the Community Relations office of the SRPMIC confirmed what I already suspected was true - they don't allow signs of any kind to simply be thrown up anywhere on their land.  They don't discriminate; all of them come down.

For instance, signs have gone up on the NE corner of the same intersection and were gone so quickly that I didn't have a chance to take a pic of them (Jeff Flake for Senate most recently, and [I think] Travis Grantham in the CD9 race).

One of the basics of a campaign is that the person responsible for sign placement learns the sign rules in the different jurisdictions where the campaign plans to put up signs.

Obviously, there is some on-the-job training going on right now. :)

...On the west side, however, things are more deliberate in the race for mayor of Glendale -

Courtesy Jeff Stana, a loyal reader in Glendale







And in case you are familiar with the name of Jerry Weiers, a long-time Republican state legislator (not "career" but definitely was there for far too long), this isn't the doing of a Democrat -

Courtesy the same reader






In case you can't read the fine print, the sign was paid for by the campaign of Walt Opaska, a tea party type who is also running for mayor of Glendale.

It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Opaska is going after Weiers. 

It's become obvious that neither one will get 50% plus one vote or even can catch Manny Cruz in the race...in the August election.  They just need to come in second (and hence, not be eliminated) and hope to win over the votes of the other's supporters in the November election.

More to come...

More fun with campaign signs...

An indicator of the status of the Schweikert campaign, this sign has been in upside down for weeks.  In fact, it was the sign that I was going to snap a pic of when I sprained my ankle over a week ago.

The best part is that the Schweikert campaign had the time to put up one of their juvenile insult signs (damaged by last week's storms), next to a Mitchell sign at the same location but they didn't have the time to correct one of their own while they were there..

Fun with campaign signs - lessons not learned edition

A mere few weeks after the end of the primary season, one that saw a one of the far right's fair-haired sons (J.D. Hayworth) fall far short in his challenge to one of the far right's pet targets, John McCain.

The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).

...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings.  But I digress... :)

You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.

For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.

But he is...

Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor.  It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that.  What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)

Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.

I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.

Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state.  As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy. 

And who profit from the agony that they've caused.

Fun with campaign signs

It hasn't even been a week, and the Schweikert campaign dirty tricks have already started...

Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -

And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...

There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more.  The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.

This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles.  It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).

It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice.  In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time.  In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).

It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signs coordinated "coincidentally timed"** with Americans for Prosperity television attacks on Harry Mitchell.  Most campaigns try to start off on a positive note, trying to educate voters on why they should vote *for* their candidate, not why they should vote *against* their opposition.

However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona.  As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.

Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic.  He *had* received such an endorsement.

For another race.

Years before.


Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -

"CD5's Champion."


** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee.  Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows.  However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.

KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.

Fun with campaign signs - Primary Day edition

Pic taken at approx. 8:45 a.m.  The woman on the right is CD5 R candidate Susan Bitter Smith with some campaign operatives (hers mostly, but at least one was a Salvino volunteer) looking at the signs in the dumpster at the Scottsdale Elks Club on Oak St.  Turns out that while the Elks are willing to allow their facility to be used as a polling place, they are not willing to allow campaigns to put up signs on their property.  Signs that were placed on the property itself were removed and disposed of.

Bitter Smith et. al. were "undisposing" of some. :)

BTW - This is the polling place for her precinct, so her personal presence isn't much of a surprise.

Pic of the Mills sign taken in Tempe, though I've seen them elsewhere and heard of them being elsewhere.  Didn't he drop out of the race? 

BTW - I didn't see any Brewer signs at polling places during my travels this morning.

Pic NOT taken at a polling place, but on a high traffic corner.  As such, I'm not going to say where I saw it, but can say that tens of thousands of commuters are able to see the upside down Schweikert sign. 

Every day.  :)

More fun with signs...

Saw this one while out walking today...

I'm not questioning the whole "illegal immigration/Joe Arpaio" motif of the sign - Kavanagh is a long-time nativist, and even if he wasn't, nearly all the R candidates in the state have prostrated themselves before their twin gods of hatred and ignorance.

Nope, my question is far more basic than that (and a campaign platform of demonizing the "other" is pretty base) -


What district is he running to represent?


Now, *I* know that Kavanagh is a current state rep from LD8 and he is running for re-election there (yes, I'm a political geek), but how is the average person going to know that? 

Many might logically assume that he is running to represent the district in which the sign is located.  Certainly, most folks would find such an assumption to be eminently reasonable.

They would be reasonable, but utterly wrong.

The sign in the picture is located on the northwest corner of McDowell and Pima roads in Scottsdale, which is well within LD17 (south Scottsdale), not LD8 (north Scottsdale).

Besides the nativist shout outs on the sign, which is pretty much the campaign playbook for Republican candidates this cycle, the sign illustrates another point that I've been making -

Arizona Republicans consider elected office less a job representing constituents and more an opportunity to foist an extremist ideology off on everyone else.

More fun with signs...

Keeping up with the theme of the last post...

It seems as if the Republicans really have their claws out for each other this year.

This sign was spotted at the intersection of Rio Salado Parkway and Priest Drive in Tempe, in the heart of CD5.

Note the add-on banner in the upper left portion of the sign.

"CO-SPONSORED AND VOTED FOR SB1070"

Which would be fine in a "I'm not going to vote for him anyway, so even that doesn't lower my opinion of him" sort of way, except for one thing -

Ward has never held elected office, much less a seat in the Arizona legislature.  He never had the opportunity to co-sponsor and vote for SB1070.

To be fair to Mr. Ward, I don't actually believe his campaign added the false statement to his sign.  Yes, every R in the state is trying to jump on the nativist bandwagon, but even they hesitate at such a blatant lie...

...OK, they don't hesitate to lie so much as they hesitate to be *caught* lying, and that one is very easily debunked.

On the other hand, they don't hesitate to be caught lying, when they can make it look like someone else is doing the lying.

And the Schweikert campaign is also using the add-on banner gimmick on their signs, with the same white lettering on a red background.

Hmmm....

BTW - As of this afternoon anyway, the banner on the sign pictured above has been changed to "Endorsed by Congressman John Shadegg.".

BTW2 - The campaign claws are out and boy are they sharp this cycle.  There are a huge number of pro-Schweikert trolls (or one pasty-complexioned one with absolutely no life) posting praise for Schweikert and criticism of Ward on all of the R blogs and many of the AZRep articles covering the CD5 primary.  Given the amount of personal wealth that Schweikert, Ward, and a couple of the others have invested in the race to challenge Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell, look for things to get even nastier than sign games and troll droppings.

In any other state...

In any other state, would a candidate for state treasurer tout the endorsement of someone who is fighting an investigation into the fiscal mismanagement of his department?

Just one question - do Verschoor's signs in other counties contain the part about the endorsement, or is that a Maricopa-only phenomenon?