Bad Campaign Literature: The Wet Blanket of Negativism. So, what are you running for?

In case you were looking for a heaping spoonful of angry-crazy this am…

There’s more than a few things wrong with this piece (as well as the person it’s about), but let’s start with the most basic of basics – Name and Office. They’re not on the outside of the mailer.

Yes, the piece says “Vote Lora Hubbel” on the front. But for what?  Expulsion from the planet? I’d be for that. Only after you open the piece, assuming it’s piqued your interest that much do you get “Vote Lora Hubbel for SD Senate.”  And arguably, for 4/5 (or more) of people  – they didn’t get that during the brief passage of time as it traveled between the mailbox and the garbage with the rest of the junk mail.

No, that’s not a specific Lora statement. That’s a truism for all campaign pieces. You’re trying to punch a message through the fog of all other media impressions. And if a politician can’t get the basic message of their name and what they’re running for through the miasma, then they’re in big trouble.

If you can bother to take the time to open it, as opposed to trying to build a rapport with the reader, it treats them to a litany of “I told you so,” and “everyone is corrupt, except me.”

Although I did laugh at the part of “lobbyist gifts of hair appointments” and “other enticing bobbles (sic).”   I’ll have to ask Lee Schoenbeck how many times Harry Christianson has offered to buy him a hair appointment.

Seriously, the whole piece just vomits forth negativity, while telling you practically nothing about Lora. She might have been far better off mailing them the front panel only, adding her office, and leaving the back for the address and postage. Instead, she just underlined why she’s a pariah in most circles.

I suppose there is one consolation. She didn’t bring up chemtrails, anti-vaxxer propaganda, or the “pre-jihad at the SIoux Falls airport.“