We saw this in the Portland mayoral race. The only on-ballot challenger to the incumbent used political tactics that overcame what would normally be exclusionary credentials. It was so successful, I was taken aback by it.
At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric.
The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned.
Hearing that sent a chill down my spine and I voted against this person.
> At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric.
> The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned.
Now I'm currently, what sort of power do you hold that would cause a politician to speak to you in private and not try and pass the same indirection and lies they would most constituents?
I donated a three-figure amount to a US Senator’s re-election campaign, and received a personal thank-you phone call from them several months later. It was an open-ended conversation and I would have had the same opportunity OP described had I not been so flabbergasted.
I hold no special power they could likely have been aware of.
I got an sms message from her campaign asking if they could count on my vote.
I replied “stop” to all political SMS except this one.
The worker and I shared a few exchanges about specific rhetoric their candidate had used. I let them know I had voted for the candidate during the primary but would not in the general.
The person offered me a 10 minute call with the candidate, and I took it.
I do not know why the candidate would say this.
Possibly they calculated I was unlikely to repeat this, or if I did it would not break through to affect votes (it was very late in the game).
Oregon is a two party consent call recording state, perhaps they calculated I was not recording or would not share it if I was.
My conclusion is that like Donald Trump, this person is a narcissist. It goes with the rhetoric and even double speak.
But I am very curious about their campaign manager. I have considered asking them for a phone call to discuss the candidates campaign, and to try and sort out what the manager had done versus what came from the candidate.
> In Oregon it is legal to record telephone conversations with the consent of at least one party, but recording in-person conversations requires the consent of all parties except for in certain circumstances, such as when all parties reasonably should have known they were being recorded. Illegal recording is a misdemeanor that can also give rise to civil damages.
OR Rev Stat § 165.540 (definition & penalty), § 133.739 (civil damages)
What were the political tactics used? I'm not familiar with the race and didn't see anything on my first search. That's some political-drama-level honesty from the candidate.
> When you have a two-party system, you get binary outcomes - ie. divisiveness.
The two-party system problem seems to be a consequence of "first-past-the-post" voting.
For example, some posters in reddit's /r/conservative were very insistent in attacking libertarian voters, pinning on them the responsibility of Trump's election loss. Their rationale was that they felt libertarian voters threw their vote away by voting on a candidate who had no chances of winning, thus robbing their candidate of support that they felt he would otherwise have if no libertarian candidate ran for president.
Consequently, they argued that the only rational approach to the elections would be if all like-minded voters concentrated their vote on not-so-good-but-popular somewhat like-minded candidate so that they could have at least a chance of electing someone who, even though might not be the best candidate in the voter's opinion, was closer to support some of their views.
The divisiveness is a consequence of the primary system, not the two-party system. The primary system is very new, only here since 1972, but the fact is that 1) the power to nominate candidates should have never been handed to the voters, and 2) now that it has been, it is impossible to revoke. The "strategic" aspect of nominating a candidate closer to the center, to capture as much of the political spectrum as possible, is impossible to coordinate with individual voters but very easy to execute by party insiders.
Without primaries, Barack Obama would have never been President but Donald Trump wouldn't have been either.
At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric.
The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned.
Hearing that sent a chill down my spine and I voted against this person.