Six Stupid Things Candidates Do to Mess Up Their Campaigns
Not staying on message, failing to develop policies, and not knowing the district can sabotage the best of intentions in a political race.
March 13, 2010 - 12:00 am
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.