Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“Signs don’t vote”

Posted in:

Illinois

* Slate takes a look at some studies of yard signs and finds that nobody has really figured out yet if they really work…

In 2008, Ohio State’s Todd Makse and the University of Colorado’s Anand Edward Sokhey set out to see if they could identify a link between candidate signs and support. They went to Franklin County, a celebrated Ohio swing county that includes Columbus, and drove the streets of 30 precincts on two weekends, one just after the conventions and one just before the election. Each time they saw a candidate sign displayed at a single-family home, the academics marked it with a GIS locator and then linked each address to its residents’ voting records and sent a survey to each household, asking the resident “most responsible” for the sign to complete it.

In 2008, 14 percent of homes displayed a sign for a candidate, and 65 percent of them were for Democrats. A few traits were consistent across party lines: Young people, generally less politically active than older folks, were more likely to display a sign. (In the survey, young people indicated that signs were one of the forms of activism with which they were most comfortable.) The act of putting a sign in a window seems as contagious as leaving one of its panes broken: Those whose neighbors had signs were more likely to have one themselves, regardless of whether they supported the same party or different ones. Those whose houses were exposed to greater levels of car traffic—Makse and Sokhey coded every thoroughfare in their precincts into one of six categories, from “dead end” and “main artery”—were more likely to put out signs, suggesting that the motivation to put one out was more “strategic” (to reach as many people as possible) than “expressive” (a need to be public about one’s allegiances).

Voters decorate their lawns. In 2006, Auburn agricultural economist David N. Laband, who had previously conducted studies showing that people who wore campaign buttons and checked the Federal Election Commission contribution box on their tax returns were more likely to vote, started looking at signs. Along with colleagues Ram Pandit and John P. Sophocleus, they mapped Auburn, Ala., neighborhoods south of Interstate 85 and marked which houses displayed an American flag on Memorial Day and July 4. Once football season kicked off in the fall, they documented expressions of support for the Auburn Tigers with a flag, sign, pom-pom sticker, or an inflated figure of Aubie, the school’s mascot. Just before the elections they went back to the same neighborhood with an eye out for candidate signs. Seventeen percent of houses had a flag, 7 percent had football paraphernalia, and 12 percent had a political sign.

After the November 2006 elections, Laband matched the addresses up against the voting histories of the people who lived there. Households that displayed either an American flag, football insignia, or campaign sign were 2.4 times more likely to have a resident who voted in the elections than houses which had none of the three. While campaign signs were the most strongly predictive of having cast a vote, just sporting an American flag made a household twice as likely to have a voter, and even Auburn football gear made it 1.6 times more likely. (The authors don’t account for whether they’re really measuring a mediating variable, like whether Auburn fanhood is a proxy for having a college degree.) The same sense of expressiveness that inspired people to publicly project their patriotism or fandom seemed to be driving them to vote.

Go read the whole thing.

Essentially, people who put up political signs do so because they are the type who put up signs. And they may be a bit more likely to put up signs if their neighbors already do.

* Campaigns spend a lot of time on yard and window signs, so candidates must think they do some good. I’ve come to regard them as an indication that a candidate has a decent organization (unless, of course, the signs are placed in public rights of way, which often indicates a less-organized campaign).

I was driving through the Pontiac area around Thanksgiving and noticed a ton of yard signs from legislative and local candidates - five full months before election day. I wondered aloud what those campaigns would do when winter weather struck. Would they replace the signs or let them rot in lawns? Since we’ve had an incredibly mild winter so far, I wasn’t able to see what happened when I returned to the area at Christmas/New Year.

* Anyway, I’d like to hear what you think about this topic. Do signs work? And if so, how do they work? If not, why don’t they work?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:34 am

Comments

In 2010 in his re-election campaign for governor-a tough fight. Rick Perry did not spend a single dollar on yard signs or literature and instead spent his entire budget on tv ads and internet ads-he won by 15 points. If you’re a well known incumbent I don’t think they matter.

Comment by shore Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:38 am
As the old saying goes, signs don’t vote…

But the candidates sure do love ‘em

Comment by Thoughts... Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:44 am
Auburn? Guess the Ohio folks could not stomach OSU.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:45 am
Sure they work, and so does skywriting supporter’s names on election day. The real question is, are they worth the money. I bet I can get that voter out to vote by making a cheap call or walking too.

If you have the $ - go for it. There are much better ways to spend volunteer time and campaign $.

Comment by Kyle Hillman Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:45 am
Ask Scott Lee Cohen.

Comment by Lakeview Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:46 am
Some people like to have a sign in their yard and folks can get pretty upset if they don’t get one. I think they matter to the base, who like to show support for their “team.”

In terms of advertising, it would seem to help with name recognition, especially for a new candidate. Other than that…

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:47 am
For non well known candidates, they help (a little) to build name ID. As you pointed out, they show a strong organization if put up on private property. They are a necessary evil. They do not vote but help a bit. They also give supporters a chance to feel that they are part of the team…some ‘ownership’ in the effort.

Comment by suburbs Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:48 am
I think I have posted the very same title of this post a few times; “Signs don’t vote”.

What I will say about signs in the “city” races, or in very well run counties and townships in the Collars, signs are something that is “tracked” by the Field Coordinator is the number of Absentees taken in a precinct (That the ‘Captain’ asked from the voters) and the number of signs at houses up.

If you have a crew working the streets, at least you know they walked the precinct, and the precinct is “worked”. How well is it worked? THAT is why “signs don’t vote”, and a good Field Organization, less the “sign count”, matters on Election Day.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:48 am
They might also work from a social norming standpoint.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:48 am
They do work in building name recognition for candidates. They are most effective on front lawns of supporters, no matter where they are located. Sometimes when placing yard signs for candidates, I will get a neighbor who asks for the same sign along the lines of “If Joe supports him, I will too.”

A good campaign has a yard sign crew that will replace signs that are damaged or taken down. A simple knock on the door will always bring good results here. Very rarely will a homeowner take the yard sign down unless the candidate starts saying dumb things. Most homeowners appreciate the follow up. If you ask them where on their lawns they want the signs, you get better results and better placement.

When the weather turns frosty and so does the ground, bring a hammer and a spike to punch holes for the sign on the ground.

Many times, if you see one yard sign for a political party, a knock on the door will get an OK for a second candidate of the same party. In my region, we have several homes that had “Kirk” and “Seals” signs up when husbands and wives have different political voting patterns. Last election we had four homes with “Dold” and “Seals.” Those homes are always the talk of their neighborhoods.

Yard signs can turn negative when they are placed in public parkways, by intersections, vacant lots, so I always caution campaigns not to do that. Most municipalities and counties will sweep them up and toss them unless you can rescue them in time. I saw hundreds of Scott Lee Cohen signs bite the dust that way, then get replaced a few days later only to bite the dust again.

So to summarize my long winded posting: Effective? Yes, if used properly.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:49 am
I am not sure how well they work but I think they help especially in statewide elections. I did notice last time what people running for the statewide constitutional offices had signs downstate and who didnt.

Comment by southernillinois Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:49 am
All that matters it who’s sign the precinct capt has in his yard.

Comment by Fed up Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:49 am
Personally, when trying to assess the effectiveness of a candidate / campaign I like to look for yards that are decorated with signs from both parties. I don’t think you can tell much from the yard that is flooded with all D or R signs. Also, I disregard signs that are placed in the right of ways - they just have more signs than yards and are generally going nowhere.

Comment by Stones Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:50 am
” … as is the number …”

sorry, to clairify.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:51 am
In my opinion, these signs are an eyesore rather than an effective tool for elections. They might spur name recognition for some, but are they worth the cost? How effective are any billboard signs in today’s Internet world? Money would be better spent in electronic advertising.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:53 am
Flocks of signs are positive indicators of neighborhood support for local candidates. Yet, folks trying to sell their houses aren’t happy at having their “for sale” signs obscured.

Comment by Metro-easterner Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:53 am
===(unless, of course, the signs are placed in public rights of way, which often indicates a less-organized campaign)===

This made me chuckle, every Scott Lee Cohen sign I saw was in a public right of way.

Comment by Lincoln Parker Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:56 am
the effectiveness of signs depends on the local political culture. but it also depends upon one’s definition of effectivenes as well as the information level of the race (federal races tend to be high info races; judicial races tend to be low info races). i’d be shocked if signs were effective in chicago wards heavily populated with high rises. but i think the most important indicator of their effectiveness is whether they remain were a supporter has put them. since there is a culture of pulling down signs in illinois — an illegal activity that carries a low (but increasing) risk of getting caught — someone must think they work…

Comment by bored now Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:56 am
Tony Peraica is NOT a big fan of the Yard Sign …

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:56 am
Signs can also be effective bait. Catching an opponent ripping down signs can have a ‘gotcha’ story running in the press !

Comment by Splatch Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 9:58 am
===Money would be better spent in electronic advertising.===
Try that in Chicago. $4 grand for a thousand signs in your district or maybe a couple of radio commercials heard throughout 7 counties.
I will take the lawn signs. On the otherhand, if I had $30 to $40 grand I would then use electronic media. Probably couldn’t find 10,000 households to put up a sign in the district

Comment by Been There Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:01 am
I don’t know if they work, but I know I’ll tend to vote against a judge or metro water district commissioner who pollutes the public way with their signs.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:05 am
Seems to me that the signs are less valuable to convince undecided voters than to buck up the spirits of the campaign workers who are busting their tails to get the word out on their candidates.

Gives you a warm feeling when you come upon a street with a bunch of signs for your side…..

Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:06 am
This topic has come up at work several times during election times. General conclusion: signs are just unmemorable, background noise that just blurs away. Right up there with robo calls on the ‘ignore it’ scale. Locally, all types of groups use yard signs for fund raisers, football team, church events, United Way, etc. They all look the same after awhile.

Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:07 am
I wonder when web ads and targeted cable ads will really become the normative marketing strategy for political campaigns

Comment by JBilla Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:08 am
Signs work to some extent at demonstrating support in the community. If your are starting out with a candidate with little or no name recognition it helps to show they have some support of people in the community. I agree with Rich, however, that signs in the public right of way do little to garner support and frankly aren’t worth the money. Campaigns would be better off using the money for mail or some other voter contact.

Comment by RWP Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:09 am
they kinda work, if u win

Comment by Done that Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:14 am
Signs place a poor second to groovy websites and sharp tongued party chairs — the GOPies strong points. We are nearly, absolutely certain this will pay dividends some day real, real soon.
However the signs do brighten up yards after all the Christmas decorations come down.
Fire, Aim, Ready

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:36 am
The way I’ve always handled this argument with people is to ask them to recall commercials (TV or radio), signs, or interent ads.

To a tee, everyone can recite TV commercials they’ve seen recently, some talk about internet ads where they signed a petition, and very few remember any signs they’ve seen.

There’s a reason! There’s no sound or movement with signs, you are not captive to it, and there isn’t much repetition.

So, do signs work as far as advertising? No, they are pretty ineffective.

Do they quiet down tantrums for some volunteers? A little. I’ve always found the ones who complain loudest about signs don’t make phone calls. The Obama campaign did us all a favor by starting the tradition of people having to pay a few bucks for their own signs.

Do they offer an organizing exercise for volunteers? Yes, but only if you have volunteers that are actually looking to put them in people’s lawns and not on public medians or highways.

Do they give people a little more ownership in a campaign and force the folks in their neighborhood to think more about their civic duty? Yes, and this study seems to confirm some of that notion.

Are signs worth it? Marginally, no, but you’re not going to get away with cutting them completely out, so stop whining and just order them already.

Comment by Tom B. Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:36 am
Signs are also a fundraising tool. You don’t usually get them for free, there is at least a nominal charge, often quite a mark-up over cost (especially if they were an in-kind donation from the printers to begin with) plus they often ask you to sign a sheet with your mailing address, so they can send you mailings. Folks that may not mail in checks to a campaign might feel better about handing over a $5, $10, or $20 for a yard sign. Is it big money? I guess not, except in lower-tier office campaigns. But it’s generally all cash, and usually under the reporting thresholds of the Board of Elections.

Springfield takes signs deadly serious: If you go out of your way to put up signs on your lawn or on your car, you’re telling everyone: “go ahead, take a note of whom I support, I have pull with that campaign”. You see the “winners” leave their signs up long after the election to “rub it in” and make sure they get their brownie points with the neighborhood tally-takers for the campaign as well.

Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:38 am
I remember the year we went house-hunting during a campaign year, and it was murder trying to distinguish between realtor signs and campaign signs from a distance. We did a lot of extra driving around that year.

Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:41 am
SIgns don’t vote. They don’t increase name ID. They are a necessity because the base wants them and they make people and the candidate feel good. More often than not, its easier to get them rather than deal with the lost time and ridiculous arguments of skipping them.

While a key influencer in a neighborhood/street may move a few people to vote for you due to their sign, its not enough to warrant the expense nor is it trackable (yet.)

In “Been There’s” example, If you have $4k to spend on a small race, don’t waste it on signs. Get a field staffer/consultant, buy some cheap literature for door knocking and work out a real field plan (and raise more money!) Target your votes and use your limited resources wisely.

Yard signs should take up as little of the campaign’s time and money as possible.

Comment by Jayhawker Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:43 am
They are only good for the printers and look like litter to me. The signs around the State Fair during the summer are an insulting bruise on the environment and cause the opposite reaction as intended. Witnessing a volunteer post 25 identical signs within 500′ of the gate makes me wish the worst for his candidate.

Comment by Y2D Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 10:57 am
===The signs around the State Fair during the summer are an insulting bruise on the environment===

Meh. That’s a one-day game. No harm.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:02 am
I always questioned the value of signs placed with persons or businesses that accepted signs from candidates competing for the same office.

Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:07 am
For down ballot races I say absolutely yes. I’m guessing they can be worth 2 to 4 pts.

For unknowns it promotes name ID at a very low cost. For knowns it can promote a sense winning. And of course the opponent can negate the effect with their own signs.

As annecdotes, I remember vividly in the 8th congressional seeing massive numbers of Joe Walsh signs but can’t remember a single Melissa Bean sign. In the 10th, Dan Seals had about half the signs compared to his previous campaigns. Both were extremely close elections and I’m convinced a better sign presence would have made the difference. Can’t prove it, but it’s my belief.

Comment by MikeMacD Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:12 am
In general, I think those commenters who said that signs are expected by the base and supporters basically have it right. It’s overhead that’s expected, like balloons in a campaign office.

Having said that, signs are more effective in local downballot races than in high profile races, where voters get information from paid messages on electronic media.

I would also add one historical exception that I heard about. When Helen Satterthwaite (I know, blast from the past!) ran in Champaign, their field organization worked some of the main thoroughfares pretty hard and pushed signs. But the smart thing they did was wait until they had a full count of who wanted signs, and then put them all up on the same night. The next morning, 100s of Satterthwaite signs greeted people on their way to work. It made an impression, at least the way the story was told me many years ago.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:14 am
Beyond a few placed at houses on the corner in high traffic locations near polling places, I believe signs are a poor use of volunteers’ time, that would be better used making phone calls, and candidates’ dollars. But supporters/friends do ask for them, and you don’t want to say no to a supporter.

Comment by Robert Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:35 am
I think the impact of signs depends upon a lot of variables.
First of all if you live in a market that does not have local TV coverage the sign or radio and newspaper ads are the only way to get your information out. If your newspaper is not widely read then it reduces your options to radio or yard signs.
In small towns sometimes the more popular neighbors can influence their neighbors by having a yard sign. It’s a keeping up with the Jones’s thing.
The location of signs on busier streets or intersections has more to do with the campaigns than the owners of the yards. Campaign people will target homeowners along those busier routes. They know they need to get more bang for their buck with a sign on a state highway vs. a sign on a cul-de-sac. I would bet that anyone who has a sign in their yard on a cul-de-sac asked for it vs being approache3d by a campaign.
I think that some folks along those busy arteries expect to be targeted. Good campaigns know where the best locations are and they have an idea of who will put a sign up from seeing signs in previous elections. There is one busy corner in our town that will have every sign from every candidate each election.
I thimk the impact of signs is also dependent upon the message. In some campaigns there will be a particular topic tyhat is the cause of the contest. A short message presented in a memorable way will influence more than just a candidate’s name.
I also think that the time of year and the weather have a lot to do with sign placement. People who are really not into the campaign will be less likely to say yes to a sign if they know they have to move them everytime they mow the grass. I have had several people tell me that when I ask about placing signs.

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:45 am
In my experience, signs matter most in local races where TV and radio are not options. I was managed a congressional campaign in a district with all or part of 19 counties. The candidate demanded signs and I refused to spend a penny on signs until we had the TV budget raised. he ordered them anyway, and ended up without enough money to stay on the air in October.

But seeing his own signs made him feel better. I guess there is some pyschological value for candidates, but there is little practical value as far as I’m concerned.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 11:53 am
Signs are a part of a campaign, just how much of a part depends on the district and other attributes that everyone above is mentioning. My gut tells me that signs are becoming less effective as a tool, just like having a candidate walk a precinct as opposed to attending a neighborhood event like a Christmas Tree lighting, where the voters come to the candidate, which I think is a much more effective use of a candidate’s time on a voter per hour basis.

I haven’t read the full report Rich has posted, but from Rich’s summary, I hope the authors of the report also did their voting preference summary on the area surrounding a sign. It would be useful to know if there is a correlation between the amount of signs in any one area with the voting outcome in that area. Cross tabbing the results would tease out the real answer to the question if signs are an effective method of communication.

Like many allude to above, I think we are seeing a swing toward electronic communication and social media as being the wave of the future. Candidates with any long term ambition would be well served to start a digital presence, and devote assets and money to the care and feeding of their presence and of their on-line supporters.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:01 pm
I do not feel that yard signs work.

For people who are uninformed and still vote, yard signs might make a difference on how they vote, as they drive to the poling place?

The question I would like answered is where do the people with yard signs work, and is the yard sign part of their perceived obligation? If you work in an elected office do you feel ‘obligated’ to put up signs?

Comment by Sunshine Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:12 pm
47th — Did your candidate win?

Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:13 pm
I think that signs are a waste of money and putting them up a waste of time. Phone calls or personal voter contact are a much better way to spend both.

Comment by Rolling Meadows Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:17 pm
He lost by a nose in November Soccermom, mostly because he spent more than $200,000 to win the primary against a nobody. I quit over the sign issue because I knew he was not going to let me run the campaign. No way would I have spent that kind of money in a primary given the stakes in November.

A candidate that runs his own campaign has a fool for a boss.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:21 pm
Billboards are the way to go!

Comment by Bill F Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:39 pm
I hate signs, and I have managed both local and state elections. However, our volunteers drive us crazy about signs when the competition starts pounding theirs into the ground. And - in the suburbs - it does let people know there is an election coming; try buying ads in our market - ghastly. My husband is an elected, and on election morning, we watch people drive by our home & write the names down. We are very particular about whose sign is in the ground because of that. It is a necessary, and expensive, evil in campaigning. Oh, and our grown children tell us when new homes they are looking at buying have good sign locations. They were raised correctly!

Comment by WonderfulWorld Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 12:54 pm
If someone was running for office and you didn’t see any signs up for them anywhere, what would you think about their campaign? Probably that it was DOA. Therein lies the value of signs - they create the perception of support, especially if they are in people’s yards (as others have noted, signs only on public right-of-ways can create the opposite impression - that the campaign has little support and so must dump signs and put them wherever they can).

Because signs exist, people expect to see them, and the more signs they see in people’s yards, the more support they believe the candidate has. If they don’t see many, they think the candidate is doomed and they might not want to vote for a loser.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 1:40 pm
Signs are important, especially in local elections like Mayor and Alderman. A real strong sign of support and organization for a campaign is a proliferation of well placed, sharp and readable lawn signs. A campaign should place at least 20 per precinct to be impactful and penetrate well.

Comment by Jon Zahm Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 2:32 pm
This reminds me: when I was canvassing for John Kerry in Wisconsin way back when, registered Democrats would complain all the time that the could not get a yard sign. It goes back to the idea that signs are evidence of campaign funding and organization.

Comment by Lakeview Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 2:35 pm
Yes, but I don’t know how much influence signs have on for WHOM people vote. I’d bet, though, that they are somewhat effective at “reminding” people that they SHOULD vote–especially during the last few days prior to the elections when many seem burnt out and turned off by negative campaigning. They could serve as a reminder that you should keep up with the Joneses and vote–no matter what.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 5:24 pm
I’ve pretty much always believed that they were primarily a measure of whether a candidate had a ground game in a given locale, and I think a lot of campaign managers, especially for races covering large geographic areas, use them to measure whether locals are really capable of delivering organizationally. For example, if you can’t get yard signs out, I’m skeptical as to whether you are going to have precinct walkers, phone banks, election day operation, etc.

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 5:54 pm
Steve has a point–though I can only remember one instance where someone came to my door to give me a sign v. my picking up the ones I wanted from a local campaign office. (And, the only reason the guy beat me to it was because it was too early to put any signs up, meaning in our Village, you could still get ticketed.)

I’ve also heard rumors that some candidates in the recent past–who don’t have a decent ground game–are now paying people to distribute signs to make it LOOK as if they have the ground troops on their side. If that’s true, deciding who has a decent ground game through distribution of signs–IMHO opinion, at least–is kind of a moot point.

And, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s usually Conservatives on the R side who are willing to hit the pavement as volunteers. If that’s true, too (and I think it still is), a ton of liberal or moderate R signs only tell me that someon’s spending alot of minimum wage dollars to look good.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 6:43 pm
And I should add that they could be paying Ds to distribute the signs for all I know.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 6:48 pm
=Signs can also be effective bait. Catching an opponent ripping down signs can have a ‘gotcha’ story running in the press !=

I’d have to disagree. Too many stories in the recent past that have now desensitized voters to that tactic, including stories where supporters have taken down their own signs to “squeal” that they were begin wronged.

(Gregor: “Martin, you’ll do not know who to trust!”)

There was one instance, however, that someone made a very LOUD statement in displaying signs. When Keyes took Jack Ryan’s place, a few Rs–believing it was the right thing to do–taped Keyes window signs (all that were available) over their Jack! sign. A few weeks later, when Keyes started bashing not only Cheney’s daughter, but his OWN daughter, the sign went into the trash, where it belonged.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 7:15 pm
Curious, has anyone here voted for (or against) a candidate because they saw a yard sign? Do commentators post signs in their lawn?

I have not voted for a candidate because of one, but I have posted them in my yard.

Comment by Jayhawker Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 7:16 pm
Anon 6:43. You make good points, and most of my perspective is very dated. The last campaign I was actively involved in was ‘94.

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 7:27 pm
I’ll have to do my best then to try to drag you outside, Steve. I think you’ll like our “ground troops”. They’re a good bunch folks.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 7:29 pm
“They’re a good bunch OF folks.”

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 7:29 pm
–And, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s usually Conservatives on the R side who are willing to hit the pavement as volunteers. –

Not in my neighborhood (Oak Park, Cook). I’ve voted in both Dem and GOP primaries. Every election, I get a ton of mail and at least three knocks from Dem canvassers. In 20+ years, the only GOP mail I’ve ever received was from Jason Plummer. No GOP knocks. Not one.

Bill Brady got 29% of the vote in Cook. If he got 30%, he’s governor.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 7:49 am
I meant within the context of Republican volunteers, Anon 7:49.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 6:10 pm