In 2007, Carolyn Frank pulled 21% in the county and 40% in the city. Last night, Gene garnered 17% in the county and 40% in the city.
Carolyn spent $6,000, had me put up a few signs, and ran an almost non-existent campaign. Gene spent $31,000, with another $33,000 in in-kinds, had the force of the democratic party behind him, and worked his can off.
I want all our local political pundits to explain what happened…..
Perhaps name recognition played a role. Carolyn had exposure on the city council and as mayor prior to her run. Some folks still confuse Gene Hart with John Hart.
I can explain this people are sick of Democrats lies. Gene Hart had Bubby and Lowell Fulk behind him that made me vote against him. Gene remember what i told you ? You didn’t take my advice now look what happened.
Are you saying John would have got more votes?
Gene Hart got 1000 more votes than Carolyn Frank did.
So, turnout was up. Percentage was the same. What’s your point?
That Gene reached and convinced more voters than Carolyn did by spending time and money on the race.
Jeremy, the pond was bigger for Gene because there were thousands more voters.
Are you going to try to convince everyone that Carolyn would not have “convinced” just as many voters if they would have been available to be convinced?
The FACT is that Carolyn beat Gene on dollars spent per vote and on a percentage basis.
Your facts are true, so is the one I pointed out. You know who did even better than Gene OR Carolyn on a cost-per-vote basis? Whoever spent $0 but still got one or more of the 12 write-in votes.
You’re trying to make some kind of point disguised as a question.
I think Brooke pointed it out in another thread: the way you decided who (not) to vote for says more about the election results than anything Gene or Matt did.