Comment on this Red County article

[protectmine]

No Reason to Contribute to Hutchens: Personality and Policy | Red County

No Reason to Contribute to Hutchens: Personality and Policy
By Adam D. Probolsky | 05/04/09 | 01:46 PM |

A lot of political giving is based on the personality behind the ask. For Appointed Sheriff Hutchens this is a big problem. She lacks the ability to make a lasting impression with people, she is not terribly interesting or unique. She has all the bad attributes of a longtime law enforcement officer/bureaucrat like an overdose of skepticism and a certain coldness and none of the good attributes like curiosity about people she doesn't know. These shortcomings coupled with her very LA-centric values means that she cannot connect well with new people she meets--hurting her chances of raising political dollars.

Hutchens supporters will counter with, "Well do we want a charmer after the Carona debacle?" or something to that effect. Their position suggests that voters would prefer a functionary over a dynamic leader. They may be right. But in order to effectivly communicate with the voters, a candidate needs to make connections with donors who will give to support the voter contact.

Being boring or even confrontational still doesn't mean fund raising is impossible. Some donors are motivated by the policy positions of elected officials much more than their personality. Hutchens lags here too. The pro-gun groups in Orange County want nothing to do with Hutchens. She is hostile to them. Again, Hutchens backers will claim that the CCW issue will actually cut her way with voters. I disagree but it doesn't matter. No one is going to be doing direct mail to the broad voting population come election time on the issue of guns. There are too few voters who care one way or the other about the issue. But it is a huge driving force for political donors who oppose the Appointed Sheriff.

It is important to keep things in perspective, we are more than a year away from the voter contact part of the campaign for Sheriff. So fund raising is the campaign and donors are much different than voters.

[Tom98915]

Originally Posted by protectmine

A lot of political giving is based on the personality behind the ask. For Appointed Sheriff Hutchens this is a big problem. She lacks the ability to make a lasting impression with people, she is not terribly interesting or unique.

But she HAS made a lasting impression - a bad one

[RickD6023]

A bad impression is still an impression.

Unfortunately in the Air Force we had a saying that goes something like this: It doesn't matter why they remember your name as long as they remember your name. It doesn't matter how bad the screw up they will forget why they know your name and just remember your name.

[swdr]

Originally Posted by RickD6023

A bad impression is still an impression.

Unfortunately in the Air Force we had a saying that goes something like this: It doesn't matter why they remember your name as long as they remember your name. It doesn't matter how bad the screw up they will forget why they know your name and just remember your name.

Mudd

[SierraNevadaCCW]

I disagree with all who say that most people don't care about the gun issue one way or another. That's just not true.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

I disagree with all who say that most people don't care about the gun issue one way or another. That's just not true.

Sadly, in Orange County it is true. It's not a big issue here. Maybe up where you are it is.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

I disagree with all who say that most people don't care about the gun issue one way or another. That's just not true.

I agree.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

I disagree with all who say that most people don't care about the gun issue one way or another. That's just not true.

Gimper and SierraNevadaCCW, I think you are both right, but at different angles. Purely speaking, guns and CCW may be a passionate issue for most of the voters. However the populace is fed-up with government erosion of our rights in general. In our case it is the second am. But others see our frustration with second am. rights and wonder about the rights that affect them, such as the first, fourth, and fourteenth specifically. This is the concept that me must pound on, "The government's erosion of our Rights" that will galvanize a collective and sympathetic populace of voters to our way of thinking.

Well, that's how I see it at least.

[naganthunter]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Sadly, in Orange County it is true. It's not a big issue here. Maybe up where you are it is.

I agree to a point - but I think that there are enough people who do take an interest in it - albeit passive - that it could make a difference in an election. Just my .02.

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by naganthunter

I agree to a point - but I think that there are enough people who do take an interest in it - albeit passive - that it could make a difference in an election. Just my .02.

I think so too. So far, there have been two major issues for Hutch (or at least the major issues that I'm aware of 1,000 miles away) and she hasn't come off looking good. If she BSes the public about the jail corruption they will see through it. She's gonna have to fire some jail personnel to make it look good.

The voters, especially in OC, aren't blind. Right now they're seeing how the Obama administration is trampling on the Constitution (in fact, they're looking to rewrite it) and equating BHO with Hutch. It's gonna hurt her.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I agree.

I think more people care than Sheriff Hutchens thinks, and THAT is what is really important.

I have many friends who are not gun owners, never will be, but they are supporters of the Second Amendment, and I can guarantee, won't be voting for Hutchens in 2010.

As long as this information is kept fresh til 2010, she's sunk.

Anything the department does should be used as an opportunity to give a synopsis of whats been done regarding CCW's, Spying, Intimidation, coverups...

OCCCWS and folks have done a great job of making it an issue here, and I am sure will continue to do so...

It started out with CCW's, but the misuse/abuse of office has started to take on a life of it's own, and eventually, she'll end up stepping on more toes than not.

Seriously, what is a Sheriff's job? To run an organization that enforces laws. There isn't really a whole lot that differentiates one candidate from another other than their stance on whether they will allow citizens to be active participants in their private safety (and maybe one or two other issues).

But really, a Sheriffs Campaign promises are somewhat of a no brainer. They have no power to cut taxes, little influence on education. They respond to crime, and provide whatever prevention they can. This is important and valued, but EVERY Sheriff is expected to do those same two things, with variance only in the way they achieve those goals.

No one says "In the event of an earthquake, don't worry, FEMA, The Sheriff and the Fire Department will rescue you". No, EVERY one of those organizations tells you that Infrastructure comes first, then the public, and your survival DEPENDS on how well prepared you are for self-rescue.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

I think more people care than Sheriff Hutchens thinks, and THAT is what is really important.

I have many friends who are not gun owners, never will be, but they are supporters of the Second Amendment, and I can guarantee, won't be voting for Hutchens in 2010.

Thats the point.

The argument we always hear "Only 1% of the population has ccws, so its not a big enough issue to effect an election" is HOGWASH.... IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!

Take a look at all the states that have BY REFERENDUM passed Shall Issue CCW in the last decade or so.... In EVERY ONE OF THEM, the measure passed by AT LEAST 51% of the vote. And yet, years later, only a small % (ALWAYS under 5% of the eligible population) have exercised the freedoms they have voted to grant themselves. WHY? BECAUSE A LOT MORE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE IDEA OF THE ISSUE THAN WHO WILL ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN IT.



Something Chris Norby said to me the first time I met with him.... We really need to take it to heart, and LIVE IT....

Chris asked "How are you getting the information you have?"

And I said "Were a small community, and many of us know and talk to each other..."

He immediately cut me off and said "NO! Never undersell yourselves.... Dont say youre a SMALL community! You lesson your power right there." "Say "theres a 1100 of us, we all know each other, were tight knit, and were all motivated!"

He is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

[swdr]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

"Say "theres a 1100 of us, we all know each other, were tight knit, and were all motivated!"

There's only 1,100 of us because our families and friends don't support our choice to carry a gun.

Oh, wait. Those other 10,000 people actually do support our choice. Maybe they also have friends. Heh.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by swdr

There's only 1,100 of us because our families and friends don't support our choice to carry a gun.

Oh, wait. Those other 10,000 people actually do support our choice. Maybe they also have friends. Heh.

I think Im missing your point.


My family and friends support my choice to carry a gun 100%. They just dont want to themselves.

Here are some similar analogies:

Flag burning- I would never burn a flag (unless I was freezing to death and didnt have anything else to burn, in which case, pass the matches). But I support OTHER people's rights to do so (even though I generally think people who burn flags or even march in protests, are *******s).

Abortion- Lots of people who would never HAVE an abortion themselves (either for personal moral reasons or because the lack of need) still support abortion rights for others.

Smoking- Today, most people don't smoke. Most people are also in favor of smoking being legal.

Guns are no different. LOTS AND LOTS of people who would never OWN a gun themselves, are very much in favor of OTHERS being allowed to own and carry them.

[X-ffdo]

Yep, as you know, things get changed by a small disciplined minority, historically speaking. I know you know this! swdr.