The neck and neck competition for Harry Reid’s Senate seat has reached the mud-slinging levels. Campaign ads and mailbox stuffers focus more on what is wrong with the opponent than what is right with the candidate who sent the mail. So much so that if one wasn’t paying attention they would have to search the ads for whom the proposed candidate is.
While there has been a national campaign to defeat Harry Reid in his bid for reelection; ultimately it is up to the Nevada voters. Nevada currently ranks lowest of states with unemployment, economic and foreclosure woes. Truly, it doesn’t bode well for Harry Reid that during his tenure things have deteriorated in Nevada so drastically.
It would seem that a defeat would not be hard to obtain under the circumstances. However, the competition, Sharron Angle; has been defeating herself with some of her radical proposals.
Angle could have had better success had she been less vocal. However, some of her speeches have included some radical ideas, and quotes that definitely will scare away possible votes from the state with such high unemployment and economical issues.
While her statements may be taken out of context or excluding further explanations; politicians need to appeal to a wider demographic. While Angle may believe things like “get rid of social security” and “Phase out Medicare” are viable ideas, she has failed to realize her words would not be well received in the state with record breaking numbers of people on unemployment, welfare and Medicaid/Medicare.
The campaign has now evolved from proposing the candidate’s views to criticizing each other’s statements. Harry Reid’s campaign mails numerous brochures with Angle featured rather than Reid. The mail and television commercials emphasize why you should not vote for Angle, using her radical quotes as ammunition. What they lack is emphasis on why you should vote for Reid, outside of simply defeating Angle.
Of course Angle is returning the fire in the same manner. The election is now about who gets defeated more than who gets elected. Angle suggests that the whole country will soon be as bad as Nevada if Reid is reelected. Who is she trying to scare? Only Nevadans are voting in November. Since Nevada is already is at the bottom, do Nevadans really care if other states sink as low?
Sadly, neither candidate has truly favorable reasons to be elected. This is probably why the campaigns have turned to slinging mud. They have resorted to pointing out each other’s flaws rather than pushing their own good attributes.
On Election Day Nevada is faced with which candidate is the lesser evil and will do the least amount of harm. Nevada could not produce a strong, positive candidate with realistic ideas to turn around the state’s economy; and influence the nation toward recovery. One has to question why that is. Has democracy truly sunk to simply choosing the least detrimental candidate?
After the election, whichever candidate is chosen, will likely result in tarnishing Nevada’s image to the other states. Enticing new businesses to come to the state will be less palatable. The impact on Nevada’s economy is likely to continue to be bad. “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.” While one senate seat is not the sole influence toward economic recovery in Nevada, it does have more visibility to the nation than other positions up for election. It will influence the choices businesses make about moving to Nevada which could lead toward an economic improvement. However, it is questionable whether the candidates of other positions are any better. It doesn’t appear that economic recovery will be anywhere on the immediate horizon for Nevada. But then again, the most other states are in the same situation to some degree, even if not as severe. The question is, are the other states going to do any better in November?