In a message dated 10/20/2002 1:01:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Tim Bonham wrote:
>
> A few possible reasons for so few lawn signs:
> - Lawn signs are expensive, both in actual cost, and in volunteer
> effort needed to call for permission, drive around putting the signs up,
> drive around repairing/replacing the ones damaged or stolen, then go pick
> them all up after the election. And find somewhere to store them till next
> election.
Lawn signs cost anywhere from $4-8 in small quantities, and anyone
with even minimal experience knows that the candidate is the one who
should be walking around asking for lawn sign locations, since they need
to be out there doorknocking anyway. The cost to have 50 lawn signs
printed up and pounded in is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount
of money you need to raise to match the state money and the time between
Labor Day and the election.
> - On main streets, not many people see the lawn signs because they
> drive by too fast or are too busy driving to look. On minor streets, not
> many people see the lawn signs because not many people go down that
> street. So where is it effective to put up lawn signs?
Both of your assumptions are faulty. People may not do the cruise
down the main drags of your neighborhood to spot lawn signs, but they
do see them. They also see them if they happen to be passing by on the
side streets as well. Lawn signs exist not only to inform the average
voter that your candidate exists but also to buck up the spirits of
your supporters. They are the grassroots equivalents of billboards,
and a lot cheaper.
> - Given that many people don't even know too many of the people on
> their own block, some candidates question how useful lawn signs are in
> influencing voters.
The only candidates I would believe that of are the DFL candidates who
have been in office forever and have gotten used to voters automatically
marking their space on the ballot because the voter automatically votes
for anyone wearing the DFL label. You and I both know they're out there.
> - Finally, a lot of people in Minnesota just don't like the looks
> of signs on their yard. So they say no even to candidates they
> support.
I have yet to meet any of these people. Lawn signs are usually up for
two or three months at most, and none of them are butt-ugly enough to ruin
property values.
>(Sometimes even the candidates don't like lawnsigns. Here in
> SD62, our DFL candidate Wes Skoglund dislikes lawn signs, and has for
> years. This year, he offered to agree with all the candidates not do lawn
> signs in this election. The Republican & Independence candidates agreed,
> but the Green Party one would not. So now Wes has said he will put up only
> half as many signs as his opponents. And we have the Green Party
> environmentalists to thank for the ugly plastic lawn signs
> in our district senate race.)
>
Waaaa. Wes is one of those folks who falls under the category
mentioned two paragraphs ago, so I'm not surprised he was willing to
forego lawn signs. As for the Greens, they're not stipod enough to
engage in unilateral disarmament in the battle for votes, and I don't
blame them. As for "ugly plastic lawn signs", surely you're aware that
these are all recyclable?
Kevin Trainor
Republican Candidate HD 61A
East Phillips
www.taxpayersfortrainor.org
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
