In past years the candidates for the various judge positions pretty much relied on word of mouth and familiarity with the local lawyers.
This year we are seeing candidates featured on expensive billboards.
That means that they are spending more money to get elected than they used to.
Does anyone know why?
We deserve better
Because they are almost exclusively Democrats?
Many people are going to be voting straight-ticket for their parties this year, and a clear majority of voters expect Donald Trump to win reelection, meaning that most Republicans will vote a straight Republican ticket and Democrats a straight Democrat ticket.
However, given that as much as 27% of persons attending Trump rallies claim to be Democrats, these persons would not likely be voting straight ticket.
Judges want to make sure they don’t get lost in the mix.
Bernie Sanders is in a favorable position to become the Democrat nominee to run against Trump, making him the first openly declared Socialist to ever run for President in the United States of America.
El Paso will very likely vote for Bernie Sanders in what could be an overwhelming turnout for this area.
The alternate scenario is that the DNC freaks at the convention when their preferred candidate isn’t winning and takes it away from Bernie. Then all the Bernie supporters stay home and once again Trump wins. The Dem judges would still want to motivate the Dems who do vote to select them. In that scenario there probably wouldn’t be a record turnout. If Bernie gets the nomination, expect our local tax and spenders to float bond issues or other votes that cost us money, because the kids from UTEP who don’t understand that nothing government does is free will turn out in droves to vote for Bernie and anything else they are told will enhance their quality of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The current election is a primary election, so there is no such thing as a straight ticket ballot (and there won’t be one in the general election…a change)…so candidates for judicial seats may feel a greater need to explain to voters what their qualifications are and why they want to campaign for this position. The Sanders campaign has nothing to do with these judicial elections!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nobody mentioned primary voting but you.
The discussion, as it appears to me, is about why judges are heavily advertising their campaigns as opposed to not doing so in years past. It seems to be a fair question.
So people seem to be generally discussing theories and you seek to counter their discussion with things they are not discussing. This seems to be a form of intellectual dishonesty that frequents the liberal agenda, make it appear that people are saying things they are not actually saying.
Apparently you would agree with Sanders about the Castro regime being fairly decent and not worthy of criticism. Castro is a great believer in controlling public speech he disagrees with.
Please post your censorship policy in full so people will know what is and is not acceptable for discussion.
You must not be paying attention. Time to Pay Attention!’s comment was precisely on point about the judicial races and the ad spending in those races. And the reference to the primaries was in context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wouldn’t a primary ticket be a de facto straight ticket? Or can you mix and match party choices in a primary vote? Democrats who have decided to vote for Trump likely would not participate at all in a primary given that it is a straight-ticket selection.
They may not call them straight ticket ballots for primaries, but they exactly meet the definition of straight ticket voting, i.e. making selections strictly by party affiliation.
I agree with the poster above about the DNC reaction to a possible Sanders nomination. That will be an ugly process no matter how it plays out.
I look forward to these people changing everything about our country that made it what it is today. Why should I be able to retire and enjoy things I worked for my entire life when there are people who don’t want to work but demand things people who do work have? /sarc
For the primary election you still have to pick a party, but you do that at the polls. So a Dem who was planning to vote mostly for GOP candidates in the general election and wanted a voice in selecting who they were could cross party but would only be able to vote for the same party in any runoff. They will be able to vote either party in the general. I agree the end of straight party ballots may also be driving judge advertising.
But I think the one lesson we should have learned from the last two years is down ballot races matter. If you want Escobar dressed in white, giving speeches in Spanish and co-sponsoring AOC’s idiot bills in her quest to become a recognized member of the squad, vote Dem in the primaries. If you someone in Congress more concerned about constituents than a personal agenda, research the five GOP candidates running for Congress and vote for one of the two who appear to be serious about running for office (announced platform, web presence, etc) vs the ones who have announced but not really put together infrastructure.
Folks, there is no such thing as a straight party vote in a primary election. In Texas you can only vote in one primary, and you must declare your choice beforehand. Primary means you are voting on who your party of choice will support in the General election, so stop trying to make this something that it is not. The original idea here was that Brutus was wondering if maybe we are not seeing more money being spent on certain primary races than in years past. That is all.