Momentary repose in election season

We can also blame other interests, there is always the bromide about the Warriors, or the fact that people are busy with their lives, or turned off by politics overall. June 7 voter turnout was pretty low, but that number was skewed because it’s easier to register and send people ballots but not as easy to get them to vote. Horse to water and all that.

I will begin with some observations, then also some clarifying information in what has been a particularly nasty political season, at least in the District 21 Assembly race.

On election night, it did appear Giselle Hale had a poor showing for the District 21 Assembly race, but I knew she would make up a lot of ground for two reasons. One is that later voters tend to trend progressive and young people tend to procrastinate on the task. They’re busier than the old folk. Also, the number two vote-getter, Mark Gilham, would top out in the low 20th percentile. He’s a Republican, and the last count shows about 14% of the registered voters in the county are registered in that party. There are a plenty of No Party Preference voters who may be Republicans but they’re not talking about it. At last count, Gilham received almost 20% and I sense he’s hitting the ceiling while Hale, a Democrat, keeps getting votes. It definitely appears Hale will make up those last votes to face front-runner Diane Papan, also a Democrat, who got 43% of the vote. That might even happen in the tally to be released later today. Some say the other candidates diluted the votes that would have gone to Hale. They did, but if you add all of them aside from Gilham’s, they still add up to less than what Papan got. But Hale is a heck of a lot closer, and once you’re in the general, it’s anyone’s ball game.

The working theory I’ve heard is that Hale was hurt by attack ads by both PACs and the Papan campaign, and I have to think that’s true. It could also be true that the sheer volume of ads turned people off and they didn’t even bother voting.

About those attack ads, especially the ones linking Hale to Trump, I will say what many are thinking: They were awful. Some wanted me to personally condemn the ads, as if that would somehow make a difference. So here. I condemn them. But that’s not going to stop negative campaigning or attack ads — because they work. It’s a sad fact of life and you saw dirty ads on all sides by the end of it. We have to live with each other after this so my hope is we see a cleaner campaign next cycle.

I find the issues much more interesting and important, which is why we focus on them in our editorial endorsements and in our news stories. The gossip and campaign stuff is generally handled very well by our columnists. Besides, the more the attack ads are talked about, the more they are highlighted and distributed — which is exactly what the person who designed them wants. We did end up doing a story on the sheer volume of District 21 campaign ads because we believed readers could use some clarity but that’s more of the exception rather than the rule. Most campaign tactics are contrived and banal, to be honest.

And any notion that we somehow put our thumb on the scale for our endorsed candidates is wrong. It just doesn’t happen. Ever. People tend to misunderstand our endorsements. They are simply recommendations based on our experience and questions. They aren’t predictions and they don’t reflect any more than who we think is the best choice for our readers. This is not a sport, we don’t pull for them. If you have a question about our coverage, our philosophy or just generally what we are thinking, just politely ask and I will be happy to talk to you about it.

As we near closing the door on this election cycle, a gentle reminder that our guest perspective blackout period for election-related topics or candidates for office is over until the filing deadline in August. Then it begins again. So pay attention.

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.