We Get Mailers

We’ve been getting a wide array of political mailers — some singly, some in partisan bundles — the last week of so. Here are some thoughts (exclusive of my political leanings or the policy contents of the mailings).

Governor

Bob Beauprez (R)

• Affiliation: Never mentions that he’s a Republican. In fact, if you didn’t know it, you couldn’t even necessarily tell from the positions presented.
• Information: Decent amount. A micro-biography, a few policy positions, a catchy motto, a nice quote.
• Negativity: None
• Aesthetics: A nice front, but the back is a bit busy, with too many colors and fonts.

Bill Ritter (D)

• Affiliation: Never mentions that he’s a Democrat. In fact, if you didn’t know it, you couldn’t even necessarily tell from the positions presented.
• Information: Decent. Election info and poll rides info on the front, some policy bullets on the back.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: A bit sparse and a bit too much white space. But simply done, and the signature is a nice touch.

House of Representatives

Tom Tancredo (R) #1

• Affiliation: Never mentioned. Discernable from policy positions, but not stated.
• Information: Lots of policy positions on the back (and for as much as I think Tancredo is a reactionary doofus (“FOR A SECURE AMERICA”), I give him some props for being a non-conformist reactionary jerk.
• Negativity: None (but see below)
• Aesthetics: The text gets a wee bit small, but it’s not bad.

Tom Tancredo (R) #2

• Affiliation: Never mentioned. But his opponent is lambasted association and party affiliation.
• Information: This flier, which is officially from the candidate, is a hatchet job negative mailing about Tancredo’s opponent, full of highly elided, editorialized (and poorly spelled) quotes from Bill Winter, as well as what can only be described as name-calling. And it’s so crudely done, I’d be embarrassed if I were a Tancredo supporter.
• Negativity: Insulting caricatures of Democratic leaders, a wretched picture of winter, and some awful pull quotes. This is negative campaigning at its crudest.
• Aesthetics: Meh. The art isn’t very good, the layout is poor, the text is difficult to follow.

Tom Tancredo (R) #3

• Affiliation: Never mentioned, though implied in the text.
• Information: Combo biography and “here’s the things I’ve done” narrative. Folksy tone to the text and the photos.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Professionally laid out.

Bill Winter (D)

• Affiliation: Never mentioned. More quotes and associations with Democrats than Republicans, but not clearly stated anywhere.
• Information: Tri-fold brochure full of policy positions, including one page of biography.
• Negativity: Some oblique criticism of current governmental policy, but no ad hominem attacks.
• Aesthetics: Okay. About one too many colors and typefaces.

State Representative

Spencer Swalm (R) #1

• Affiliation: Never mentioned. Implied by some of the folks quoted as supporting him.
• Information: Only a handful of bullet points. Lots of pictures and a couple of catch phrases.
• Negativity: None (but see below).
• Aesthetics: Professionally laid out. One minor formatting glitch that shouldn’t have gotten out.

Spencer Swalm (R) #2

• Affiliation: Never mentioned.
• Information: Some bullet points on Swalm and his education policies (on one side).
• Negativity: Criticism of his opponent fills up the whole back side, mostly on a single issue (her opposition to the CSAP).
• Aesthetics: Okay. A bit busy.

Angela Engel (D)

• Affiliation: Never mentioned.
• Information: Trifold brochure. Lots of verbiage, though a lot of it is fluff.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Someone threw this together in Word. Not bad, but not professional.

N.B. Swalm must have spent a zillion dollars on lawn signs: they are everywhere, almost as many as Beauprez and Tancredo have out there combined.

County Clerk/Recorder

Nancy Doty (R)

• Affiliation: Not stated. Not that I think it should be a partisan office, but since it is …
• Information: Mostly fluff. Some credentials, and a cute series of acronyms about what she’s done in the office.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Okay. About what you’d expect for County Clerk.

Kathleen Conway (D)

• Affiliation: Yes! Someone who’s willing to admit what party she’s from! Major brownie points!
• Information: Vision bullets, background info, endorsements.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Oh, my. Awful pictures, some unfortunately distorted (wider than they should be). Small text. Garish colors. Flimsy paper stock. About what you’d expect for County Clerk … ten years ago.

Miscellaneous

Tom Donahue (D) – County Commissioner

• Affiliation: Nope. Nothing in his positions indicates any affiliation.
• Information: Trifold brochure, but most of one side is bakground/bio, most of the other side is pictures. One panel of positions, none of which probably differ from anything his opponent would be in favor of.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Another Word product, enhanced by clumsy tab settings, inconsistent layout, and some really awful colors.

Corbin Sakdol (R) – County Assessor

• Affiliation: None. Again, not sure why this is a partisan office, but it is, even if Sakdol’s unwilling to claim his affiliation.
• Information: Small postcard, with endorsements on one side, CV on the other. Of course, what sort of policy info can you provide as assessor?
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: It’s not purty, but it’s not ugly, either.

.Mike Coffman (R) – Secretary of State

• Affiliation: None provided.
• Information: Not that there’s a lot of policy involved, but he makes clear his feelings of about illegal voters.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Nice cover. Busy reverse (including an odd thumb-print background).

Michael Doberson (R) – County Coroner

• Affiliation: Again, why is this a partisan office? Regardless, no mention of affiliation is given.
• Information: Mostly biographical info, giving his qualifications. Some endorsements.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Not ugly, but a bit busy.

No on 39

• Affiliation: N/A. Endorsements provided.
• Information: Simplistic bullets against the proposal, plus a couple of pull quotes from papers.
• Negativity: A bit of name-calling at the proposition and its supporters.
• Aesthetics: Okay. A bit busy. Effective (if manipulative) photos.

Yes on I

• Affiliation: N/A. Endorsements provided.
• Information: Provides an explanation of the referendum, its text, and some comments about it.
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Very nicely laid out.

Voting Guides

Republican (yup, no web page)

• Affiliation: Well, duh. Not in the title, but hard to miss.
• Information: Candidate (with photos), sample ballot (with Republican names circled, and ballot issues without any recommendations).
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Simple, but clear.

Democratic

• Affiliation: Well, duh. Not in the title, but hard to miss.
• Information: Voting date info, precinct info, county clerk info, candidates (with photos, web sites and phone numbers; position summaries for major offices), positions on two ballot issues (39, I).
• Negativity: None.
• Aesthetics: Well laid out, good use of color, professional in appearance. On newspaper stock.

A few comments on website (or their URLs):

1. Everyone except the Arapahoe County Republicans had a website on their mailings.
2. Everyone had a personalized domain, except Doberson (who used a TinyURL to point to a Rocky Mountain News candidate page).
3. Kudos to Tom Tancredo’s organization for having a .org TLD (rather than a .com).
4. Minus points (IMO) for the “fluff” URLs with the two ballot issue brochures (“FairEqual.org” for Yes on I, “COExcellentSchools.org” for No on 39). URLs should be descriptive, not advertising. But, again, that’s IMO.

Note — just because you have a “good” mailer doesn’t mean you’re a good person, or that I agree with you, or vice-versa. But for the “great unwashed undecided,” presenting infomation that’s clear, fair, and well-presented can only help — and doing the opposite can only hurt. I would hope that nobody would vote solely upon a postcard in the mail, but first impressions do count.