In 2006, longtime Maryland State Senator Ida Ruben was challenged in her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for the Maryland State Senate in the Democratic primary by Jamie Raskin, a political activist and lawyer. Ida and Jamie represented two different generations of Maryland residents and lived in two different adjoining counties. It was a hardfought and sometimes tempestuous battle for the nomination which Jamie eventually won. And, in this overwhelmingly Democratic district, winning the Democratic Party nomination virtually assures victory in the general election. And that’s what happened. So this battle was what really mattered in winning this particular seat.
Find attached the mail materials from both the Ruben and Raskin campaigns.
Please review them and write an analysis of what you see from each campaign, focusing specifically (but not necessarily solely) on the following questions:
What is Ruben’s message as an incumbent seeking renomination as evidenced by her materials?
Does she do an adequate job of presenting her narrative and theme in the context of her mail pieces?
Does her slogan derive from the narrative and theme? Does it work?
How do the visuals (colors, photos, drawings, typeface choices) add or detract from her message(s)?
What is Raskin’s message?
Are his narrative and theme clear? Does his slogan reflect his narrative and theme?
What about Raskin’s visuals? Do they add or detract from his message(s)?
There is, in the middle of the campaign, a battle over allegations made about Ruben’s responsiveness to constituents and Raskin’s status as a “real Democrat.” Pick out the pieces that were mailed in conjunction with that battle for control of the message. Assess each candidate’s approach and level of sophistication and success in raising and responding to negative allegations.