In the race for mayor in Indianapolis, the Republican candidate Greg Ballard had everything against him: he had very little support from his party and he was running against two-time mayor Bart Peterson. The financing of the two campaigns shows the true David vs Goliath situation: Ballard had raised less than $300,000 while Peterson had more than $4,000,000 in his pocket. And yet Ballard won with his victory considered by many as a major upset.
What happened?
One can suggest Peterson lost for many reasons: the people of Indianapolis were upset at the changes he had brought to the city (such as hefty increases in property taxes, his showing favoritism to big business such as the Indianapolis Colts giving them all kinds of tax breaks and financial incentives which required those tax increases, and his merging of the Indianapolis Sheriffs with the IPD causing all kinds of scandals of its own). Another reason could be pure hubris. Peterson thought he could walk over Ballard; early on in the campaign Ballard was an unknown, and yet Peterson’s campaign created many negative commercials against him. As this great Fox News Special Report shows, this helped create name recognition for Ballard. More importantly, as the same Special Report suggests, there is an indication that voters are upset with politics as usual and this election might hint at what we should expect in 2008. Perhaps.
It is great that one who had no real party support and major monetary support can still win an election: hopefully someone can do in the national scene what Ballard did in Indianapolis. But for this to be possible, one thing is necessary: people need to support those whom they want to win instead of following party lines and listening to party leaders who dictate to them names of those who are to be considered the only “viable candidates.” In Indianapolis, it’s now been shown that the party can be wrong.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In