The Anatomy of a Political Campaign. April 18, 2019

Copyright © 2019                               John F. Oyler 

April 18, 2019

The Anatomy of a Political Campaign

My initial reaction to the news that there would be a special election this Spring to fill the State Senate seat in the 37^thDistrict was “Who cares?” This attitude ended abruptly when I got to work on this year’s income taxes and realized how much I owe the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and began to wonder what the state does for me. Perhaps I should pay attention to this election after all.

The Democratic candidate for this office was a woman named Pam Iovino. I was familiar with her because a group of my neighbors who are dedicated Democrats had supported her a year ago when she unsuccessfully tried to get party endorsement to run for Congress in the election that Conor Lamb eventually won.

Her Republican opponent was an equally familiar person, Mr. D. Raja, an Indian immigrant who has built a successful information technology firm while dabbling in local politics. My neighbors were equally dedicated to their opposition to his candidacy.

Consequently I decided to pay attention to the campaign and to document each event that occurred during it, as well as my current preference for either of the candidates. It was an interesting project, one that highlighted my personal biases regarding contemporary politics.

On March 4 I received a visit from one of my neighbors, encouraging me to support Ms. Iovino. He is a gentleman I greatly respect, despite the fact he and I differ greatly on several major issues. I assured him that I favored his candidate.

Three days later my mail included the first negative ad attacking Mr. Raja, accusing him of business practices that were completely irrelevant to this campaign. This annoyed me greatly; I am strongly opposed to negative campaigning. I would receive four more such ads in the days to come. 

When I complained about this to my Democratic neighbor, he dismissed it. “It has been proven negative ads are effective, And, after all, those mailings come from the national party.” Both of these comments did little to enhance my support for Ms. Iovino. 

Throughout the campaign I did not receive any negative ads attacking the Democratic candidate. I was told, however, that both parties had run negative ads on television. Could be, my television viewing is so infrequent that I would have missed them.

In total I received nine mailings from the Democrats, two from the Republicans. The telephone solicitation was equally one-sided. It appears that the Democrats nationally were significantly more interested in this local election than the Republicans and that locally there was a massive volunteer effort for Ms. Iovino and none whatsoever for her opponent.

Both candidates vowed to “fight” for me. I find this a little disturbing; I would much prefer someone who would work, or negotiate, or compromise on my behalf. Both parties have been taken over by extremists. The only remedy to the impasse this has created is for a revival of moderates in both parties, people who will focus on finding common ground on some topics and working together to resolve them. Infrastructure would be a great place to begin.

A pair of columns published in the daily newspaper, allegedly authored by the two candidates, pushed me toward Mr. Raja. His comments were much more specific than Ms. Iovino’s generalities. Perhaps he had a better ghost writer. 

The evening before the election I received a phone call from a volunteer in Texas begging me to vote for Ms. Iovino. I had a long discussion with her, trying to understand why she thought her opinion regarding a local election about which she knew absolutely nothing should matter to me. 

The same evening I received a text message from another outsider. My reply to it initiated a series of messages allegedly addressing my concerns, but actually just regurgitating generalities from the candidate’s website. I am impressed with the Democrats’ enthusiasm, disenchanted with their knowledge of the issues.

On four occasions I received telephone calls asking me to participate in a survey regarding my preferences in this specific campaign. Each time, I carefully attempted to answer each question honestly, even though my answers did not always appear to be logical. I am not certain what I think about polling; too often the questions are ambiguous.

By the time the election actually occurred I was still undecided upon which candidate I would support. I decided to pose a handful of litmus test questions to volunteers at the polling place and make my decision based on their answers. The questions included infrastructure funding; the proposed Marcellus Shale severance tax; and state funding of local municipal projects, a subject that currently has me upset.

Just this week it was announced that Mt. Lebanon had received a grant of $750,000 from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s Multimodal Transportation Fund to provide “new sidewalks and updated street lighting” for the Washington Road business district. I believe this is the fourth time in my memory that this streetscape has been redone; I do not think this is something the state should fund.

Unfortunately, when I arrived at the polling place, at about 3:30 in the afternoon, there were no volunteers there from either party. This is unusual; typically one must run a gauntlet of volunteers each pleading “Vote for my candidate”. Consequently I was forced to rely on a flip of a coin to make my decision.

In reality, the only time I am comfortable for voting for a specific candidate is when I have an opportunity to speak to him/her in person. This works well for local elections. Although I am not eligible to vote in Bridgeville I have observed enough at Borough Council meetings to be confident I can sort out the legitimate public servants from the pretenders. Having the videos of those meetings on “Bridgeville.org” is a valuable public service.

Another interesting trend is the rejection of “establishment” politicians in favor of inexperienced outsiders. Years ago public servants (politicians) proved themselves in local situations – Borough Council or School Board – before progressing to State Legislator, State Senator, U. S. Congressman, etc. That made it much easier for the serious voter to judge the candidate’s qualifications. Today the mere fact of being an inexperienced outsider appears to be an advantage.

So, why did Ms. Iovino win this election? I attribute her success to the enthusiasm of her volunteer supporters, an enthusiasm stemming partly from her gender and partly from the general dissatisfaction many people have with the current resident of the White House. I detected no enthusiasm whatsoever for her opponent; it appears the Republican Party has gone into hibernation in this area.

Paying attention to this campaign from an objective perspective was an interesting experience for me. Nonetheless I am weary of choosing the lesser of two evils and of voting against candidates. I yearn for the days when I could enthusiastically support a candidate.