Imperial
03-05-2010, 12:15 AM
While we may all be sad that Debra Medina lost her bid for governor, there are lessons we must take from her campaign both good and bad.
The Good
1) Capitalizing on the tea party movement.
This includes such groups at 9/12ers, We Surround Them, Tea Party Patriots, and many other grassroots organizations. Medina did an excellent job consolidating this vote, particularly early on.
She diligently attended tea party events, as opposed to Perry. Perry selectively attended events and gave alot of rhetoric, but you can never take a constituency for granted. If you want to control a constituency, you have to make sure you target that constituency.
This was a major problem for Kay Bailey Hutchison- GOP Moderates do exist, but she did not bother to go after those moderates. She tried to fight Perry on his turf and lost. This is opposed to Medina, who targeted the constitutency that could most effectively provide sympathy for her views and be counted on to turnout for the primary. See the different impacts: whereas Kay Bailey stagnated in the polls, Medina shot up with no money. And while Perry would have been a harder barrier to surmount, Medina was trending to overtake him before the Beck fiasco.
Note also the parallels with our other candidates. RJ Harris has tried to take this tack, but it is hard to see the result yet. Rand Paul has also worked this constituency and is a front-runner.
2) Real-World Tax Cuts.
In an age where politicians are afraid to give real policy positions, a phenomenom has occurred. Most GOP candidates stand before people and declare, "I will never vote for a tax increase." This requires no courage. They may say "I want tax cuts" with the maybe implication they will at some point, especially right before an election.
But what I have seen is that no-name candidates (like Medina) can take advantage of this. In New Jersey, you may or may not be familiar with Chris Daggett. He ran an independent candidacy for governor that eventually shot up from single digits to over 20% in the polls for a short time. And how was this? He said cut taxes across the board but increase the sales tax.
Voters are tired of hearing, "I want to cut taxes". But when they here a politician say they have a real-world plan they will push upon election, it gets voters ready to fight for you. I think a big reason Medina was able to win over undecideds in the debates and the tea party movement was she had a clear plan over Perry relying on his record or Hutchison relying on the anti-Perry.
I can honestly say that watching the polls every day, THIS is a winning strategy to get your race up to prominence. You will have to know the issue inside and out, but if you can master it like Medina and Daggett you will have a chance to skyrocket when the moment is right. But there is a drawback, and we will get to it.
3. Leverage the debates!
Medina was awesome at this. In the first debate particularly but also the second debate, Medina came off as a clear victor. She had articulate policy solutions and passion. More importantly, she had a grasp of the facts. I remember a few days before the debate, Medina was quoted in some article saying she was reading up and studying before the debates. What do you think Perry and Hutchison were doing? Perry was probably memorizing the perfect soundbite, and who knows what Hutchison was doing (how do you fumble the abortion question 20 years later?!?!)
The point is that our liberty candidates, as a general whole (meaning if you are not Rand Paul) are going to start out with little money and low name recognition. Thus even if you have a great platform and target constituencies, all of that is just preparation. It is like setting up the circus before it opens- all of this makes sure opening night is a huge success. Similarly, debates are the most effective breakout moment for a liberty candidate. It is the easiest thing to point an undecided voter to and to let our voices be heard.
Daggett was actually similar. He was widely seen as the victor in the first New Jersey gubernatorial debate because he offered real-world solutions and had worked certain constituencies before the debate. He did his prep work, and got the reward when the moment was right.
So STUDY for your debates!
4. Manipulate the big dogs
It is hard to set this up in your favor. It was more of by chance this occurred for our two big case studies here, Medina and Daggett.
Daggett had a sitting New Jersey governor and prominent GOP candidate slugging it out without any issues at stake. He effectively ran ads that set him out as an alternative choice and kept his campaign positive. Crist and his Dem opponent started running the negative ads.
This is the same as Hutchison and Perry. Both ran multi-million dollar negative ad buys on each other... without hurting Debra Medina. If Medina had kept her momentum from the week before Beck and made the runoff, Perry would have had a problem. His name had plenty of negatives attached to it, while Medina had massive favorables. This is a HUGE advantage when you are running a no-name campaign.
5. Focus, focus, focus
Medina did awesome at this! Her campaign had two focuses: 1) Fight the Federal leviathan here in Texas and 2) Reform the tax system. She covered an ideological and real-world platform all at once. If you keep pounding and keep your campaign focused, it helps. Of course, it has to be a winning issue! Medina luckily had found a winning issue.
It must be noted one big thing the Beck incident did was break this focus. More on that later.
Now, onwards to the dark side.
The Bad
Of course, there are screwups that must be accounted for. We can take lessons to say what not to do.
1. Know your audience (the electorate)
When Medina went on Glenn Beck, she may have thought she was wise in keeping a vague position on 9/11. But the problem is that once you get past your breakout moment, people are watching you. Medina was getting massive coverage in the race for a short time of about a week when people realized she shot up in the polls.
At this point, anything you say isn't to Dan Patrick, or Glenn Beck, or Dallas Morning News. You are talking to the voters.
This is a sad fact, but politicians have to control their perception. Medina's poor choice of words on Glenn Beck allowed those looking for an opportunity to sink her with an ability to blur the voters (previously favorable) perception of her campaign.
So here is the key. Yes, moderate what you say and make sure you don't sound extreme to the candidates. But you STILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. If you are going to have to distract the focus of your campaign and destroy your favoribilities to make a claim, then keep your answer simple and non-controversial.
You have to make your chains of logic simple for the electorate to follow, because they don't breathe the nuances of politics like we do. The pundits will do this, and destroy discourse in the process. So we have to work to make our logic as simple as possible. Distracting statements hurt this too much.
2. Need... Money....
This one is not Medina's fault. And indeed, she did a good job working to get that funding compared to many of our liberty candidates. But nevertheless, lack of money can kill a candidate.
Daggett lost his momentum because of one simple problem. The Republican in his race, Christie, actually put out a 500k ad buy on Daggett. The claim? Daggett was raising taxes. Of course, Christie ignored that his cut taxes plan didn't exist. He also ignored Daggett was raising taxes in some areas but cutting more in others.
But that didn't matter. Daggett, late in the race, did not have enough money to answer the attack and could not be everywhere at once. Lots of undecideds got a simple logical attack thrown at them. In response, they gave Christie the votes he needed.
Medina's problem with lack of money was that when a negative attack came out, she couldn't reframe the debate. Voters could not hear her side of the story. I was depressed that a week before the primary I heard voters lament, "You know, I wish Debra Medina would come out and clarify or retract what she said." SHE DID IMMMEDIATELY! But did people hear it? No. She didn't have the money to control her favorabilities.
I think if Medina had kept growing, we still may have had this problem. Hutchison would have been forced to do an ad buy attacking Medina to make the runoff. It wouldn't have been as bad, but it could've been there.
There is no easy answer to this. How do you know someone will run a viable campaign before it happens when they have no name recognition?
The simple answer is that you cannot. So this is just something that the candidate must keep in mind. You are walking on needles if you have no money! Tread carefully, liberty candidates. Move forward and take the lessons here and apply them to your races. If you focus and give real-world solutions you may just have a shot.
The Good
1) Capitalizing on the tea party movement.
This includes such groups at 9/12ers, We Surround Them, Tea Party Patriots, and many other grassroots organizations. Medina did an excellent job consolidating this vote, particularly early on.
She diligently attended tea party events, as opposed to Perry. Perry selectively attended events and gave alot of rhetoric, but you can never take a constituency for granted. If you want to control a constituency, you have to make sure you target that constituency.
This was a major problem for Kay Bailey Hutchison- GOP Moderates do exist, but she did not bother to go after those moderates. She tried to fight Perry on his turf and lost. This is opposed to Medina, who targeted the constitutency that could most effectively provide sympathy for her views and be counted on to turnout for the primary. See the different impacts: whereas Kay Bailey stagnated in the polls, Medina shot up with no money. And while Perry would have been a harder barrier to surmount, Medina was trending to overtake him before the Beck fiasco.
Note also the parallels with our other candidates. RJ Harris has tried to take this tack, but it is hard to see the result yet. Rand Paul has also worked this constituency and is a front-runner.
2) Real-World Tax Cuts.
In an age where politicians are afraid to give real policy positions, a phenomenom has occurred. Most GOP candidates stand before people and declare, "I will never vote for a tax increase." This requires no courage. They may say "I want tax cuts" with the maybe implication they will at some point, especially right before an election.
But what I have seen is that no-name candidates (like Medina) can take advantage of this. In New Jersey, you may or may not be familiar with Chris Daggett. He ran an independent candidacy for governor that eventually shot up from single digits to over 20% in the polls for a short time. And how was this? He said cut taxes across the board but increase the sales tax.
Voters are tired of hearing, "I want to cut taxes". But when they here a politician say they have a real-world plan they will push upon election, it gets voters ready to fight for you. I think a big reason Medina was able to win over undecideds in the debates and the tea party movement was she had a clear plan over Perry relying on his record or Hutchison relying on the anti-Perry.
I can honestly say that watching the polls every day, THIS is a winning strategy to get your race up to prominence. You will have to know the issue inside and out, but if you can master it like Medina and Daggett you will have a chance to skyrocket when the moment is right. But there is a drawback, and we will get to it.
3. Leverage the debates!
Medina was awesome at this. In the first debate particularly but also the second debate, Medina came off as a clear victor. She had articulate policy solutions and passion. More importantly, she had a grasp of the facts. I remember a few days before the debate, Medina was quoted in some article saying she was reading up and studying before the debates. What do you think Perry and Hutchison were doing? Perry was probably memorizing the perfect soundbite, and who knows what Hutchison was doing (how do you fumble the abortion question 20 years later?!?!)
The point is that our liberty candidates, as a general whole (meaning if you are not Rand Paul) are going to start out with little money and low name recognition. Thus even if you have a great platform and target constituencies, all of that is just preparation. It is like setting up the circus before it opens- all of this makes sure opening night is a huge success. Similarly, debates are the most effective breakout moment for a liberty candidate. It is the easiest thing to point an undecided voter to and to let our voices be heard.
Daggett was actually similar. He was widely seen as the victor in the first New Jersey gubernatorial debate because he offered real-world solutions and had worked certain constituencies before the debate. He did his prep work, and got the reward when the moment was right.
So STUDY for your debates!
4. Manipulate the big dogs
It is hard to set this up in your favor. It was more of by chance this occurred for our two big case studies here, Medina and Daggett.
Daggett had a sitting New Jersey governor and prominent GOP candidate slugging it out without any issues at stake. He effectively ran ads that set him out as an alternative choice and kept his campaign positive. Crist and his Dem opponent started running the negative ads.
This is the same as Hutchison and Perry. Both ran multi-million dollar negative ad buys on each other... without hurting Debra Medina. If Medina had kept her momentum from the week before Beck and made the runoff, Perry would have had a problem. His name had plenty of negatives attached to it, while Medina had massive favorables. This is a HUGE advantage when you are running a no-name campaign.
5. Focus, focus, focus
Medina did awesome at this! Her campaign had two focuses: 1) Fight the Federal leviathan here in Texas and 2) Reform the tax system. She covered an ideological and real-world platform all at once. If you keep pounding and keep your campaign focused, it helps. Of course, it has to be a winning issue! Medina luckily had found a winning issue.
It must be noted one big thing the Beck incident did was break this focus. More on that later.
Now, onwards to the dark side.
The Bad
Of course, there are screwups that must be accounted for. We can take lessons to say what not to do.
1. Know your audience (the electorate)
When Medina went on Glenn Beck, she may have thought she was wise in keeping a vague position on 9/11. But the problem is that once you get past your breakout moment, people are watching you. Medina was getting massive coverage in the race for a short time of about a week when people realized she shot up in the polls.
At this point, anything you say isn't to Dan Patrick, or Glenn Beck, or Dallas Morning News. You are talking to the voters.
This is a sad fact, but politicians have to control their perception. Medina's poor choice of words on Glenn Beck allowed those looking for an opportunity to sink her with an ability to blur the voters (previously favorable) perception of her campaign.
So here is the key. Yes, moderate what you say and make sure you don't sound extreme to the candidates. But you STILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. If you are going to have to distract the focus of your campaign and destroy your favoribilities to make a claim, then keep your answer simple and non-controversial.
You have to make your chains of logic simple for the electorate to follow, because they don't breathe the nuances of politics like we do. The pundits will do this, and destroy discourse in the process. So we have to work to make our logic as simple as possible. Distracting statements hurt this too much.
2. Need... Money....
This one is not Medina's fault. And indeed, she did a good job working to get that funding compared to many of our liberty candidates. But nevertheless, lack of money can kill a candidate.
Daggett lost his momentum because of one simple problem. The Republican in his race, Christie, actually put out a 500k ad buy on Daggett. The claim? Daggett was raising taxes. Of course, Christie ignored that his cut taxes plan didn't exist. He also ignored Daggett was raising taxes in some areas but cutting more in others.
But that didn't matter. Daggett, late in the race, did not have enough money to answer the attack and could not be everywhere at once. Lots of undecideds got a simple logical attack thrown at them. In response, they gave Christie the votes he needed.
Medina's problem with lack of money was that when a negative attack came out, she couldn't reframe the debate. Voters could not hear her side of the story. I was depressed that a week before the primary I heard voters lament, "You know, I wish Debra Medina would come out and clarify or retract what she said." SHE DID IMMMEDIATELY! But did people hear it? No. She didn't have the money to control her favorabilities.
I think if Medina had kept growing, we still may have had this problem. Hutchison would have been forced to do an ad buy attacking Medina to make the runoff. It wouldn't have been as bad, but it could've been there.
There is no easy answer to this. How do you know someone will run a viable campaign before it happens when they have no name recognition?
The simple answer is that you cannot. So this is just something that the candidate must keep in mind. You are walking on needles if you have no money! Tread carefully, liberty candidates. Move forward and take the lessons here and apply them to your races. If you focus and give real-world solutions you may just have a shot.