Dems Slaughtered in INDIANA Local Elections

Indianapolis Mayor Democrat Bart Peterson was defeated last night by Republican Greg Ballard. Peterson was predicted to beat Ballard handily. The city council also reverted to GOP control. There were local issues such as property taxes levied by the State that were used to defeat Peterson even though he had no control over the rising property taxes. The elections in the surroundinig 'burbs also went solidly GOP.

It is my firm belief that the local, Clear Channel AM right wing hate radio here in Indy played a MAJOR role in electing Ballard. I believe strongly that until Democrats and Progressives mount a sustained and focused attack on AM hate radio on a LOCAL level, we will continue to fail in countering one of the extremist right wing's most potent weapons.

It is a depressing day here in central Indiana.

Beholden to the DLC? (As is California's)

Weak? Strong?

How about the county Democratic organizations?

Mayor Peterson's sad defeat was most likely due to the crazy property tax situation, but I was wondering... Could the libertarian candidate "Peterson" have been placed on the ballot to possibly confuse and siphon votes? Just a thought.

and a TRO on those machines.. just sayin!

With the exceptions of 1964 and 1976, Indiana has gone GOP in every presidential election since 1936 (they even voted Dewey over FDR in the middle of WWII, for God's sake). Currently, Indiana's governor is GOP, one of its senators is GOP, and half of its House is. However, on the positive side, Indiana's House contingent was 7 GOP, 2 Dem until the Dems picked up three seats in 2006.

nt

a good informative OP that I can't find right now.

But it seems from IG's post that the losses in Indianapolis last night appear to be an example of elections across the country being the Democrats' to lose, and it takes a lot for Democrats to lose big these days. The losses in Indianapolis were likely preventable or could have been minimized in that the damage that caused the losses should have never happened the way it did and the party just dropped the ball.

Just an observation from several hundred miles away.

As the party that champions free speech, I'd be a little careful about calling for an attack on local radio programs. I agree it's a potent weapon, but I am never in favor of suppressing speech. What we need is MORE speech, not less. MORE freedom, not less.

It's not like there's a true free market system where many local and diverse voices are heard and the most popular rise to the top. It's that large rightwing corporations such as Clear Channel buy up stations with powerful signals, impose their rightwing talk programming, and shut other voices out of the market.

On a machine with an on/off button, how does Clear Channel "impose" their programming on anyone? The OP said he believed radio played a big role in the election. Therefore, he must believe that a lot of people listened to it. If a lot of people choose to listen, then it's not being imposed.

But I agree I'd like to see a more wide-open market for people to choose from. Still, I am not in favor of attacking radio or other media outlets. Suppressing speech is never the answer.

The point is Democrats have to start letting those LOCAL businesses that sponsor these programs that their support will be communicated to local Democrats. Knowing that local Democrats are getting the word out to other Democrats in the area about these shows and their local sponsors, these businesses will then have to consider whether they want to support programs that insult a large chunk of their customer base. Quite simply, we need to raise the cost to local businesses for advertising on these AM hate radio programs.

Here in Mass therea are no Dem/liberal/progressive stations. Plenty of RW crap no one listens to. We did have Air America on one station but Mitt "the Douchebag" Romney and his Company "Clear Channel" bought it out and decided what Mass REALLY needed was a latin dance channel.

I am all for free speech, but allowing one or two companies to dictate the agenda is disgustingly wrong.

I now listen to talk radio at work on my computer and just regular local news on the radio in the car.

With DangerDave921, If we tell righty what they can listen to then they can tell us the same. I hear alot about hate radio but don't listen. It's just a bunch of old white guys bragging about making it out of poverty by working, bla,bla,bla I am reminded of the term, if you can't beat them join them.
No I don't want to join them but we can beat them at their own game. I suggest we start or own talk network and spread the truth in every city where hate radio is. I am sure we can get an all star line up, rosie needs a job, to stamp out the hate radio. I should get royalties from this new network, I am a Genious !

hey genious.....We've tried liberal talk radio, it hasn't worked. Does Air America ring any bells? Leave AM radio to the "old white guys" as you call them. We've still got Katie Couric and the network stations to give our side of the issues. I think the networks need to give their opinions on the air, instead of just neutral facts. That way we can combat Rush and his kind.

they'd change the format of a low profit station in a heart-beat.

Clear Channel may be a Republican-leaning company but they still want to maximize their profit whereever possible.

Dem backed talk radio has not faired very well in any major market for very long. When it is there and not profitable for the stations/companies that have provided it, it will be taken off of the air. That is how the free market system works

Sometimes clearly RW companies buy the liberal talk stations and turn them into yet another unnecessary "Latin Dance" station that no one is listening to.

Massachusetts has ZERO liberal talk radio stations.....probably 6 or so "Latin Dance" stations and probably another half dozen RW sleaze stations. That doesn't represent the market...sorry it just doesn't.

These channels fair well with listeners, but businesses are so afraid of becoming targets for the right wing, that they will NOT advertise on it, which causes a loss of revenue.

There are plenty of listeners... tons, but no money to back it up because people are scared of the nut jobs - and, rightfully so when one considers most domestic terrorists have been right wingers.

Liberal radio has done well in Portland for a few years now -- and the signal is pretty good.

It seems that there is quite enough speech and not enough accountability. I believe that the way to impose accountability on AM hate radio is to let the local businesses that advertise on these programs know that local Democrats and Progressives that buy from them are going start holding them accountable for sponsoring programs that do nothing but lie about, villify and attack anything and everything considered Democrat, Liberal or Progressive. The way to effectively do that is to have local Democrats and Liberals implement an ongoing awareness campaign. The campaign should focus on letting Democrats know which businesses are advertising on what shows and what is being said on these shows. Quite simply, local Democrats have to ask themselves why they would ever buy a Ford from the local Ford dealer who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to sponsor right wing programs that slime and smear generations of their family. As it stands, I do not think that most local Democrats know which local businesses in their area are enabling the right wing AM radio hate mongers.

Boycotts are a true american tradition. So I am all for voting with one's pocket book.

Also, what exactly is hate radio? Is Air America considered hate radio? Is DU a hate-website? I don't know what using the term "hate" really means anymore because it is tossed around so much. Seems that if you disagree with someone, you're suddenly branded a hater.

If you call everything you disagree with as hate, you don't have to debate on the basis fact.

You have the right to be heard on the street corner. You do not have the right to be broadcasted everywhere.

IN is a tough nut to crack...That makes Evan Bayh's success all the more impressive... After all his dad's political career was ended by Dan Quayle...

I know nothing about Indiana politics other than it is one of the most reliably Republican states in the midwest.

Even so, isn't this another case where a concerted effort has been made to appeal to single-issue voters, who typically are Republican. I would be curious if turnout actually made the difference.

GOP Single Issues:

Any tax increase
Any gun control
anti-abortion agenda
anti-gay prejudice
anti-minority prejudice
anti-immigrant prejudice (are you listening, Hillary?)
anti-secular agenda

Karl Rove has, for instance, successfully used anti-gay tactics in every election he has been involved in, starting before George Bush became Governor or Texas.

The tactics often involve getting (sometimes meaningless) single-issue initiatives started solely for the purpose of spurring increased turnout of those single-issue voters.

Unfortunately those tactics work well. Democrats need to find, create, and use single-issue tactics of their own to increase voter turnout. This is not as easy, however, since Democrats, in general, don't tend to fit into the "single-issue" mindset.