It is that time of the year again, where the lawn signs are in bloom. The season, this year, has come early, due in large part to the fact that we are in the middle of several contested primary elections.
Sadly, unlike flowers, signs do not just pop up on their own. No, some poor intern or first time campaign manager usually gets stuck with the job of loading their 1997 Kia with twice the weight their axles can handle and drive all over town to drop off signs that are about as far apart as you can imagine. During this same time, these poor souls are looking for prime (though illegal) spots to put up signs – you know them, the spots that are in vacant lots, off freeways, and next to known polling locations. Then, after all of their hard work and suffering, you come to discover that anywhere from ten to twenty five percent of the signs you so diligently put up have mysteriously vanished into the ether.
I have yet to find one campaigner that loves doing lawn signs. they are a logistical nightmare, they take up a large amount of resources – both in volunteer time and in campaign money, when in one central location (like the candidates home) they generally stink to high hell, and, to top it all off, they leave one hell of a cut on your hand that is ten times worse than a paper cut.
So why do campaigns do it? Well, it is because lawn signs do say something. In short, they tell you how desperate you are, how secure you are, or how much work you still have to do.
Take, for example, the Mike Lee for senate campaign. I have been hard pressed to find Lee signs in peoples yards. Sure, they pop up in public locations, but these signs do not require permission to place. Often times many cities and counties even have ordinances in place that expressly outlaw the placement of such signs at these sorts of locations. This maneuver reeks of desperation as the campaign tries to make it self bigger than it is.
Tim Bridgewater’s signs, on the other hand, can be found in many peoples lawns. It appears that his more “moderate” voice is resonating with people involved enough to take a sign and, most likely, vote. Although I do have to say that it is not advisable to put your face on a lawn sign – not only is this a more expensive lawn sign to produce (having to use four colors instead of one or two), but you are just asking for teenage boys to draw terrible, awful, things on your face.
Jim Matheson has a tried and true lawn sign design with a simple green and white motif, it is clear that since day one he has wanted to craft himself as the environmental candidate. By moving away from the traditional red, white, and blue motifs seen on just about every lawn sign you ever see, Matheson ensures that his signs actually stick out in a crowd.
Claudia Wright, on the other hand, is taking the traditional color route. Though I understand why she chose to do it, it is interesting to see that she has a three color logo, thus increasing her printing costs. With a cash strapped campaign, it is those types of little decisions that can add up to a huge resource drain. I will say that the Wright campaign has the fewest illegally placed signs as far as I can tell.
In the end, two campaigns will have wasted a ton of plastic but, hey, it is only a little bit of oil, right?
You again have rushed to judgment and assumed facts regarding the Wright campaign that you pulled out of ?? wherever.
Matheson’s signs reflect the color of what he likes best: MONEY. You make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he is spending on mailers (six over sized glossies in the last five days). The waste of paper, ink. the fact that none of it is on recycled stock says much more about his campaign than a few hundred signs that may be out there letting people know who the real Democrat is for the Second District.
It’s interesting you degrade the use of red white and blue on flag day. Your timing is impeccable.
I believe you have missed your calling. You need to open up a campaign consulting firm so everyone can access your unlimited knowledge.
Your perspective on what signs say definitely depends on where you live. What you describe of the Lee and Bridgewater signs is the exact reverse of my experience. I see Lee signs in private yards and the very few Bridgewater signs I see (it’s Always a novelty to find them) are in the public places where permission is not needed. I’m not discounting what you have seen, just saying that your own experience may not be indicative of the general trend in a broader area. Obviously you live and/or work in an area more favorable to Bridgewater while I live in an area more favorable to Lee. (Where I work has no campaign signs for any race so far.)
Claudia Wright’s signs are only printed on one side, which makes up for a bit of the printing costs. Her campaign did not want to be discriminatory and choose two of America’s colors at the expense of the third. I applaud Jim Matheson’s choice of green as it blends red and blue, just like his voting record.
I find Wright’s choice of seagull to be an exceptional mascot as it alludes to Jonathan Livingston Seagull…
“The book tells the story of Jonathan Livingston Seagull, a seagull who is bored with the daily squabbles over food. Seized by a passion for flight, he pushes himself, learning everything he can about flying, until finally his unwillingness to conform results in his expulsion from his flock. An outcast, he continues to learn, becoming increasingly pleased with his abilities as he leads an idyllic life.
“One day, Jonathan is met by two gulls who take him to a “higher plane of existence” (a possible allusion to the beliefs of traditional Chinese, in that there is no heaven but a better world found through perfection of knowledge), where he meets other gulls who love to fly. He discovers that his sheer tenacity and desire to learn make him “pretty well a one-in-a-million bird.” Jonathan befriends the wisest gull in this new place, named Chiang, who takes him beyond his previous learning, teaching him how to move instantaneously to anywhere else in the Universe. The secret, Chiang says, is to “begin by knowing that you have already arrived…” Not satisfied with his new life, Jonathan returns to Earth to find others like him, to bring them his learning and to spread his love for flight. His mission is successful, gathering around him others who have been outlawed for not conforming. Ultimately, the very first of his students, Fletcher Lynd Seagull, becomes a teacher in his own right and Jonathan leaves to teach other flocks.”
Deb, not to nitpick, but yellow and blue make green, red and blue make purple.
I don’t really have a horse in the race, so Curtis, I don’t know what I should yell at you for. Sorry. Maybe I’ll think of something later and come here to scream and rant at you for.
One thing that is driving me nuts though? Mike Lee is using Barack Obama’s font. Well, that doesn’t bug me, but I jokingly mentioned it last week and was shouted down for it. Now, Connor Boyack (the former Social Networking Director for the Lee Campaign) refuses to acknowledge the fact that he’s wrong or that he’s lying. Does it matter what font he uses? NO! Does it matter that they feel the need to lie about it? YES!
Anyhoo. Keep up the fight.
You should open up a campaign consulting firm! I would be the first to interview…. you are spot on. Keep it up.
Mike,
Of course Curtis didn’t mention Jim’s mailers… this article is about lawn signs.
I would like to point out to you that lawn signs != mailers.
You seem a little touchy as of late… and I don’t see where Curtis degraded the Red, White, and Blue merely pointed out the printing cost of two colors versus one.
And what is a campaign manager of a congressional race doing commenting on a blog?