I find it amusing, to put it mildly, that sign stealing has become an issue in the presidential campaign, particularly among outraged neophytes on social media.
The stealing of campaign lawn signs is a dirty-tricks practice that has been carried out for decades. So much so that the media began ignoring these politically motivated thefts about 10 years ago. Only the local papers (or these days, bloggers) consider this to be news.
Sometimes a victimized candidate gets a bit of media coverage because, in their bare-bones campaign for school board or township board, signs are the only advertising they can afford.
But to suggest that the number of yard signs – added or subtracted across the landscape – will have an impact on the presidential race is comical. Most of the complaints about theft or vandalism of signs are heard among the Trump supporters, many of whom have only the barest knowledge of elections and campaigning.
Most political pros consider signage a waste of money (“signs don’t vote”) as their only value is in improving the name ID of a newcomer candidate. Hillary Clinton and Trump are probably the two best-known candidates in the history of presidential elections so, in the race for the highest office in the land, signs are silly.
People who should know better, who have been in the political arena, talk on social media about Trump signs outnumbering Hillary signs by huge margins in certain areas. Maybe that’s because the Clinton campaign has put a low priority on signs. In contrast, a candidate who spends $3 million on hats has some terribly mixed-up priorities.
People steal campaign signs thinking it hurts the candidate they oppose but it often helps, as the local media, often a weekly newspaper, will zoom in, portraying that candidate as a victim of dirty politics.
I’ve even heard of one instance in which a candidate removed his own signs just so he could get a sympathetic write-up in the local paper.
Most newspapers and radio stations have wisely decided to ignore these stories. The big exception is an instance where the thief is caught in the act on video. TV loves it if the perpetrator is caught on tape.
In her latest column for Dome Magazine, Susan Demas, editor and publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, takes a look at the media’s hackneyed habits when reporting on election campaigns, from the “delightfully droll” to the downright dumb.
Sign stealing makes her list of the Top Five, as does a favorite of 2016, the outlier poll:
Polling is expensive, so much so that only a few news organizations pop for it nowadays. But there are always a few polls released more to net headlines than follow industry standards. It’s really tempting to report on these bigly. You know that your “Clinton Leads Trump in the 26th Straight Poll” headline will induce yawns. But your “Trump Within Striking Distance in New Poll” clickbait is gold. Maybe you’ll hit the jackpot and get that Drudge Report link. And besides, when Clinton wins by 7 points on Election Day, no one will remember your story, right?
