by David Safier
I wonder if the City Council election results would have been different if Trasoff and Uhlich came out strong and early against Prop 200. I know the smart money consultants said, Play it safe, you can't be against increasing police and fire protection. But what if they didn't "play it safe" . . .
First, a digression.
During the last presidential primaries, the Dem nomination came down to three choices, all intelligent, all personable, all reasonably qualified. With an unpopular R president, the election was ours, so long as we didn't do something really stupid.
The smart, careful, cautious folks said, for God's sake, don't nominate the black guy! The country isn't ready for that yet, and when his last name rhymes with Osama? Why don't we just give up and cede the election to the Rs?
The white woman? This isn't the time to risk everything by trying to break new ground. And with her husband hanging around her neck like an albatross, she might as well have a bull's eye on her forehead.
The only safe choice is the white guy, John Edwards.
That would have turned out nicely, huh? Can you say President McCain, boys and girls?
Back to the City Council race. We all knew Prop 200 was a disaster. Imagine what might have happened if Trasoff and Uhlich decided to pitch their tents with the anti-200 forces early. While it might have appeared unpopular at first, they could have used it as a way to tell people they'd increased the police force already, something most voters didn't — and still don't — know. They could have talked about how crime went down during their tenures. They could have talked about their long range plans to add more police and fire protection when the economy turns around. And then they could have said, It may not be a popular stand, but I know what's best for Tucson right now, and it's not burdening us with an unfunded mandate. They would have looked resolute, not wishy washy.
Because of differences between them, Trasoff and Uhlich ran very separate campaigns. They could have used this one issue as a point of unity — put out joint fliers and ads, pool money with the No-on-200 people to run TV ads against the Prop featuring both of them, make joint appearances.
Eventually, the voters came around and massacred Prop 200. How many of those folks would have come around to Trasoff and Uhlich as well and changed the course of the election?
I'm not going to say for certain this would have earned them both votes, but I'm guessing it would have done far more good than harm. I'm guessing Uhlich would have won easily and Trasoff might have squeaked out a narrow win.
The moral of this story is, candidates who play it safe, especially when they go against their principles to avoid offending some voters, are playing a very dangerous game. Better to stand for something. Otherwise, why should I work for you? Why should people on the fence vote for you?
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Exactly!
As Jim Hightower puts it so well:
“The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos”
thanks — I may drop by a Green Party meeting to find out.
I’ll offer a contrarian view expressed by some Republicans with whom I have spoken. They believe that had there not been a Green Party candidate in the race, that this anti-incumbent vote would have gone to the Republican candidate. The Green Party presence may have saved Karin in the end, not hurt her. I believe there is some validity to this theory, but it cannot be tested unless everyone who voted for the Green Party candidate is interviewed.
More importantly, there was an unusually high number of under votes — no candidate selected — in the council races indicating voters were unhappy with their choices. The under vote was larger than the margin of victory in Wards 3 and 6.
David, you assume that voters are educated and rational. As the 400 vote shows, Tucsonans are pretty stupid. Give up tax revenue in the midst of the worst economic downturn in our lifetimes? Seriously? This city has some serious problems that start with people. Problems that can’t be fixed with politics.
I think Carolyn is correct. As for “playing it safe” – me? I’m sick and damned tired of that idea. Prop 200 was the mother of all rotten unfunded mandates. Coming out quickly and unequivocally and stating the reasons was the RIGHT thing to do. I like candidates who do the right thing! As for the Green Party – well, I have a terribly dim view of candidates who run to make a statement even if it will result in a candidate unalterably opposed to everything they stand for will get elected if they take away votes from a very good candidate. Thank goodness, the Green did not knock out Karen!!!!
True, but both Nina and Karin were waiting to see if opposition mounted against Prop. 200, and it did. Karin lost votes in a 3 way race to the Green Party candidate, and Nina lost touch with her constituents which may explain her loss.