Six Stupid Things Candidates Do to Mess Up Their Campaigns
Debra Medina was charging hard in the Texas governor’s race, closing in on three-term U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in a three-way contest. A second-place finish would have put Medina in a run-off against incumbent Governor Rick Perry for the Republican nomination for the governorship of the second largest state in the country.
Then she went on Glenn Beck’s radio show. When asked whether the federal government had a role in 9/11, she responded, “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that.”
Glenn Beck summed up the aftermath of the interview when he said Medina was heading back to single digits. Medina finished a distant third in the Texas gubenatorial primary with 19% of the vote, well behind the top two contenders. Medina is not the only one. Many well-intentioned newcomers are in danger of politically spazzing themselves to death.
Americans are tired of politicians’ smooth answers, refusal to follow principles, and slick campaign talk. However, some campaigns are doomed to defeat because they’re making basic errors.
As a former candidate, I made a couple big mistakes that I wish someone would have told me to avoid.
If people want to make a difference, they should avoid giving their money and energy to campaigns that have doomed themselves to political oblivion. Here are the warning signs.
1. Going off-message
Medina’s truther answer is a prime example. After the interview, Medina pleaded that questions about 9/11 have nothing to do with the issues facing the state of Texas. Exactly. That’s why she never should have said there have been “very good questions” raised about whether the government was behind 9/11 .
Good candidates run for office for a reason, but there are constant distractions. Candidates should avoid opining on issues that are irrelevant to winning the election.
For example, while there’s merit in returning to the original Constitution and ending the direct election of senators, it’s never going to happen. Candidates who raise the issue are doing their political chances harm because it distracts from the message they want to communicate.
Entertaining conspiracy notions — whether it be from the 9/11 truthers, birthers, or from people who believe aliens landed at Roswell – also distracts from the campaign’s message and ultimately sabotages the campaign.
A campaign should not be a stream of consciousness expressing whatever random thoughts and fancies come into the candidate’s head. The candidate is asking people to spend their time and money to dedicate themselves to a cause. It’s not unreasonable to expect that candidates will dodge attempts to distract with fringe “issues.”
A gaffe like Medina’s raises another question. When people elect a political leader, particularly an executive, they’re looking for a decision-maker. They’re not electing an ideological set of positions. When a disaster hits, people expect the governor to make the right call. They want their governor to have the discretion not to embarrass the state.
Texas voters wanted to know whether Medina would make good decisions if elected and if she could be trusted to be the face of Texas. Lincoln said it best when he declared, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
2. Failing to develop policies
Even worse than going off-message is not having a message in the first place.
At one meeting I’ll never forget, candidates for county commissioner were appearing to speak to a Republican group. One gentleman got up, and his presentation for why we should nominate him for local office involved messing around with his personal digital assistant to find his favorite Ronald Reagan quotes.
He didn’t get nominated. Some folks run with vague platforms that have nothing to do with the office sought. For example, in Montana, I ran for Lincoln County treasurer at the age of eighteen, and my big applause line was that I thought Bill Clinton should resign. Of course, this was a poor platform for local office, and I got shellacked at the polls.
I ran for the office because I felt we needed to elect people who wouldn’t misuse their power. In retrospect, I should have channeled my concern for the lack of good public servants into examining how the county treasurer’s office could better serve the public.
The same principle applies to other offices. It’s not enough to run around and say “I want to bring back the principles of Ronald Reagan” or “I’m going to restore the Constitution.” That doesn’t give people a governing vision that springs from those principles.
For example, one could begin the process of restoring the Constitution by focusing on eliminating specified unconstitutional practices or programs. Or we could honor the vision of Ronald Reagan by inserting market principles into a failing government.
People want campaigns to actually relate to the problems that are being faced in a given district. They don’t only want to hear about general principles that don’t easily apply.
Adam,
Great article and I think you nailed the issue right on the head. This is the reason that the current crop of GOP candidates is not doing better then they are. The GOP could sweep just about every election by having a clear message of how they are going to fix the wasteful spending in Washington with concrete examples (i.e. removing earmarks, lobbyist reform, true campaign finance reform, enforcing the laws on the books already, free market solutions, etc.) We need people that are running for something vice running against Washington because we are not stupid and know that if they have no plan or ideas of their own they are going to quickly become part of the problem vice solving it. This is the reason Palin isn’t getting better traction with more voters, she hasn’t put forth concrete policies that the average American can get behind. The people were tricked once by Hope and Change, so they are now looking for solid and believable policies.
Mr. Graham your article makes for interesting reading, but it is academic and fundamentally flawed because it speaks primarily to conservatives: A group loaded with about the same amount of energy as a split atom and an even greater number of hyper particles of logic flying off into space in different directions.
On the other hand liberals stay super-glued together in a sickening mass of humanity that continues to exist precisely because they violate everything you talk about in your article and people love it – They suck up to it everyday like some kind of soap opera or sugar fix.
You come close to the truth of the matter in your Stupid Thing #5 where – “If that was the case, only sociopaths who didn’t care who they hurt would file.”
Change the candidates part so that it includes over half of the active voting population and you have the answer as to why slobs like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama keep getting elected.
The answers to the problems you are trying to solve are hidden inside their root which is, “The absence of God.”
Figure out how to put a nation whose people seek nothing but perpetual self gratification for themselves back together like America was from the beginning until it threw God out in the mid 1950s and you may be onto something that will work.
Meantime politics will remain an ugly art of deceit and destruction just like what we have in the White House and Congress right now.
Thanks anyway for the good fight Mr. Graham.
How about;
Letting the Media be a consultant.
Believing what the MSM says is important to people and trying to follow rather than shaping a vision to present to them
or
Viewing Principles as a Marketing Strategy rather than as Principles.
Many of todays Republicans are looking at the principles of the Tea Party Movement as a Marketing Strategy. But they seem to have Democrat Lite in thier DNA. (You can tell when the Dodge engages when asked about Repeal of ObamaCare. If the Dems can pass something via Crooked Means, why MUST Republicans accept that as Status Quo if elected to power? Because they do not actually posess the principles that they espouse!)
I might add that Obozo didn’t articulate any kind of proposals or policies beyond “Hope and Change” and he did quite well. He was completely vague and mushy in his policies before elected and had folks swooning.
Simply stated, while all this list above is nice, the biggest mistake most politicians make is Being Someone They Are NOT.
Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan! Period.
Bob Dole offered to be whoever we wanted him to be.
jd
Good advice. Not identifying the voters may be the biggest one in many primaries. One that catches a lot of candidates for local office is that primary voters in a presidential year can be a different group of voters than in an off year in many districts. Look four and eight years back to catch everyone who might vote in the primary. Another big mistake is to not aggressively go after another candidate’s voters when that candidate drops out of the race.
Another thing that I have seen happen is candidates who assumed they had a base because they had run for the same office before. Many times they find that a large component of the 40% they drew when running against the incumbent was protest vote and their own base is more like 15% when they are running for an open seat.
Wouldn’t it be more fun if Medina actually won the primary, and exposed her Truther-ness in her debate with the Dem candidate?
The Republicans and the Tea Partiers owe Glenn Beck big time.
Here’s some more hints:
1. Keep it simple. Your platform should have three main planks. More than that and your message gets diluted. Make sure these three main things are on all your literature. Be informed so that you can answer questions, but stick to your message.
2. Don’t waste money. You don’t need glossy, four color brochures and signs. Two color is fine.
3. Talk to as many people as you possibly can, but do it intelligently. Find out where your voters live and concentrate on them.
4. Have events planned so that you can invite people when you are on their doorstep.
5. Ask for help when you find a receptive voter. Try to make each supporter a force multiplier. But go easy-make it easy tasks that people can do.
5. When speaking, after you state your reasons for running, surround people with their own ‘yes’ statements. “Don’t you want lower taxes?” Don’t you want less government?” Get them to buy in on their own beliefs.
6. Don’t waste time trying to convince people. You want to ID the people who agree with you. This is very important. Argue with your opoonent, not the voter.
7. Never, EVER trust the media. On anything. Use them.but don’t think they are your frind. Their job is to get a story that promotes them, not you.
Good luck.
I’m volunteering on a campaign now on a policy committee. I’m rather dismayed at my fellow committee people – they’re mostly just looking for a job! They don’t seem to understand that we need a MARKETING plan for our topic – what will get the candidate into office! Instead they want to promote MORE regulation and hence power for them in their future prospective jobs.
So be careful and critical of your “helpers.” They too often are looking out for themselves.