Today I filed to run for state representative in the 113th district in Kansas

Originally Posted by Brett85

I certainly thought my campaign would go much better than that. I knocked on every door twice, except for the houses in the country. I can't see anything I could've done differently. I certainly appreciate the support that everyone here gave me. I may still consider running for office in the future. We'll see.

Kansas is, like my state, a black box voting state. If you feel you should have done better given your efforts, it's certainly possible that the vote was rigged in favor of your opponent. Look up the story/saga of Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson in your state and her multi-year, multi-election quest to access voting machine paper records. It's quite apparent that someone is hiding something in Kansas and it's likely a problem across the country.

Good work regardless! We've had issues in the past but I'm proud of you. Only people that have run for office can appreciate how difficult it is, plus you spread your message to a lot of people and 34% for a first go (assuming no rigging) is a great effort to build on.

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

That is defeatist talk, the lower you start on the ladder the longer it will take you to move up to a significant office, many people never advance beyond the level they start at and many start higher up the food chain and succeed, I will leave it up to Brett to decide what his best next move is and so should you since he knows his area better than either of us but under the right conditions he might have a good shot at US Rep.

It also widely depends on where you're running. In a big city, offices like city council are much harder to win because they're so high profile and require A LOT of resources and have a bunch of candidates. In a rural area or incorporated town it might be easier though.

Originally Posted by Matt collins

You've obviously never done a serious election. Try educating yourself instead of staying an ignorant backwoods yokal. If you do that, then you might learn to win.

And that usually means lying to people, spamming your name everywhere, ignoring campaign and election rules, buying endorsements and spending gobs of money doing it all. Oh, and then hoping your election isn't rigged after doing it all.

Originally Posted by devil21

And that usually means lying to people, spamming your name everywhere, ignoring campaign and election rules, buying endorsements and spending gobs of money doing it all. Oh, and then hoping your election isn't rigged after doing it all.

No, actually not the case.

- no need to lie.

- spamming? well, yes you have to get your name out there

- breaking the law? not a good idea and shouldn't be done

- buying endorsements? eh, they don't make a huge difference most of the time

- yes marketing costs money. elections are marketing exercises

- election rigging is very rare and unlikely, but there are things you can do to guard against it



Seriously, this is what they teach in campaign school. It's not rocket science but it isn't intuitive either.

removed. not going to clutter up Brett's thread arguing with Mike Rothfeld's (the man that skimmed 10's of millions of dollars from Paulite's donations) protege' Matt Collins.

Originally Posted by Brett85

The only mailers that went out were from outside groups, both for and against my opponent, and also my opponent put out mailers. I mostly ran radio ads rather than putting out mailers. I'm not sure if that was a good idea or not. Maybe people don't listen to the radio anymore.

I have no idea . I listen to radio when driving and pitch mailers if I am busy . By the way , Great Job man . My Father was a State Rep and he also was a big door to door guy .

Originally Posted by oyarde

I have no idea . I listen to radio when driving and pitch mailers if I am busy . By the way , Great Job man . My Father was a State Rep and he also was a big door to door guy .

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

I think Matt is right to suggest people learn how to win elections.

In retrospect there's a lot of things I should've done differently. Once you run once you kind of figure out what needs to be done. I didn't really build a campaign organization of any kind. I didn't rely on others for advice. I didn't really even have a campaign manager. I thought I could just win the election just by working extremely hard, just by knocking on doors like a mad man. It didn't work that way. Working hard isn't all it takes to win an election. It also takes a lot of planning and studying the best methods to reach voters. After having run once I think I now at least have a better idea what I need to do differently if I run again in the future.

Originally Posted by Brett85

In retrospect there's a lot of things I should've done differently. Once you run once you kind of figure out what needs to be done. I didn't really build a campaign organization of any kind. I didn't rely on others for advice. I didn't really even have a campaign manager. I thought I could just win the election just by working extremely hard, just by knocking on doors like a mad man. It didn't work that way. Working hard isn't all it takes to win an election. It also takes a lot of planning and studying the best methods to reach voters. After having run once I think I now at least have a better idea what I need to do differently if I run again in the future.

It's great that you did it. Lessons learned are valuable. This would be a good time to take notes for possible future use.

Originally Posted by Brett85

The only mailers that went out were from outside groups, both for and against my opponent, and also my opponent put out mailers. I mostly ran radio ads rather than putting out mailers. I'm not sure if that was a good idea or not. Maybe people don't listen to the radio anymore.

Mailers are useful because you can target likely voters, you never know who will tune in to radio but you can see the list of people getting your mail. Door to door, mail, and phone are the main ways to contact voters. Combining every option you can afford and knowing the best use of resources is the tricky thing. Compiling a list of supporters and actually getting out the vote is one of the hardest parts where we tend to fail. Ideally you want to know how many supporters you need to get out to win, say 1500, and identify more, say 2500, and hopefully get enough to the polls to win a majority.

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

I think Matt is right to suggest people learn how to win elections.

Yes. But races are different. There are basics that work but some things vary state to state and race to race. Learn how to win in your area, you won't learn just by following Matt's generalized advice. A lot of people who go to the seminars and stuff he recommend lose anyway.

Originally Posted by William Tell

Yes. But races are different. There are basics that work but some things vary state to state and race to race. Learn how to win in your area, you won't learn just by following Matt's generalized advice. A lot of people who go to the seminars and stuff he recommend lose anyway.

This is a common misconception. Pretty much everywhere in the US elections work the same. There may be some local issues that you'll need to adjust for, but the basics of winning an election are the same everywhere.

Originally Posted by William Tell

Yes. But races are different. There are basics that work but some things vary state to state and race to race. Learn how to win in your area, you won't learn just by following Matt's generalized advice. A lot of people who go to the seminars and stuff he recommend lose anyway.

The people we are going up against are very powerful. They know if they cant win honestly, they have no problem with resorting to and winning dishonestly.

Originally Posted by DamianTV

The people we are going up against are very powerful. They know if they cant win honestly, they have no problem with resorting to and winning dishonestly.

Yep. I had a bunch of my signs stolen during the election, even big 4x8 signs.

Originally Posted by Brett85

Yep. I had a bunch of my signs stolen during the election, even big 4x8 signs.

What would happen if Free Speech were prohibited? Would they "let" you run for office, but not advertise it at all because it hurts your opponents feelings? Its not much different than having laws passed that "prohibit competition" for businesses by requiring Licenses to do whatever. Want to cut hair? You need a License. Want to sell Lemonade? You need a License. Interior Design? License. And the reason they say we need all these things regulated is because of problems caused by existing businesses. And who were these businesses that did all the bad things? The big existing businesses already in place. So who benefits? Companies that use those License to prohibit competition, which allows for Monopolies.

So what happens if that same concept is applied to Speech, not just for the people we elect, but for the people themselves that come out in support of your campaign? If your supporters have their Speech License revoked for speaking positively about you, how could you possibly win an election? What about Media Blackouts like they repeatedly did to Ron Paul?

Point being, there are a LOT of ways to "steal" an election. For those who cant see the Big Picture, they cant see when there is real election interference.

---
@Brett85 - Just out of curiosity, did you see other forms of Election Interference?

Originally Posted by DamianTV

@Brett85 - Just out of curiosity, did you see other forms of Election Interference?

Not that I can think of, but one of my 4x8 signs was even taken by a government agency, the Kansas Department of Transportation. I got it back but had to put it in a different location than before. It was attached to a farmer's fence at an intersection of two major highways. KDOT actually claimed that his fence was on state property, even though it had been that way for the past 35 years. And, my opponent had one of his signs at that exact same location when he ran for reelection back in 2016, and they never took his 4x8 sign down. So it appears as though they had a favorite candidate in the race.

Originally Posted by William Tell

Mailers are useful because you can target likely voters, you never know who will tune in to radio but you can see the list of people getting your mail. Door to door, mail, and phone are the main ways to contact voters. Combining every option you can afford and knowing the best use of resources is the tricky thing. Compiling a list of supporters and actually getting out the vote is one of the hardest parts where we tend to fail. Ideally you want to know how many supporters you need to get out to win, say 1500, and identify more, say 2500, and hopefully get enough to the polls to win a majority.

I didn't send out any mailers myself, but Americans For Prosperity and other conservative organizations sent out mailers critical of my opponent. They sent out numerous mailers criticizing him for voting in favor of a 1.2 billion tax increase, as well as many other liberal votes that he took. None of it seemed to have any affect for whatever reason. People don't realize that Kansas is actually a moderate Republican state. We're heavily Republican but also have a ton of Republicans who are more moderate to liberal than conservative. We have a ton of former Republican state legislators who are openly admitting that they oppose Kobach for Governor and support the Democrat Kelly instead.

I know nothing about running for office. I do know about junk mail. I throw it away without looking at it. I was in printing for over 25 years and owned a company for over 12 years and printed lots of junk mail.

I think name recognition is what matters. Probably many people get elected not for what they know or what they will do but who they know. I would imagine if you are good friends or rub elbows with union leaders you have a better chance of getting elected with their endorsement than you do by sending out mailers.

Agreed. I dont respond to junk mail and do a lot of ad blocking online, and most tv spots I just fast forward. As far as just pure advertising goes, we've gone well beyond Ad Saturation and are deep into Ad Pollution territory. Its just not effective anymore.

I think better solutions are being able to get interviews on local TV and Radio Stations, as well as a lot of online media where the message being carried is more important than approaching it like advertising. When Ron Paul wasnt elected, it wasnt because of a lack of advertising, but most definitely Campaign Interference. What Ron Paul did right was that people knew who he was and the message he carried.

Ron Paul was too nice. He was the only person that knew how it was and told it how it was. Few people understood or wanted to acknowledge his message. Ron was right on almost every issue. Ron was not popular. Few loved him many called him crazy.

Originally Posted by Schifference

Ron Paul was too nice. He was the only person that knew how it was and told it how it was. Few people understood or wanted to acknowledge his message. Ron was right on almost every issue. Ron was not popular. Few loved him many called him crazy.

Although everything you said was true, lets dig a bit deeper.

Those who did support him, heard his message. Those who did not most likely had not heard his message. What they got was a distorted manipulated negative view of him. Everything they did, media blackout, calling him a nutjob, making his supporters look bad, it all added up, and those who didnt like him only followed the phony crowd of people that could only repeat the bad crap about him. He really did have a TON of support from us, and when they did things like shut down the Nevada GOP Convention because they found out he had won in the Caucuses, it was pure Voter Fraud coming from the top.

Either way, it was our responsibility to carry his message, just as it would be for people that would and could vote for Brett85.

Vanity Fair mag in a recent issue has published a "hatchet jobbie" on Rand Paul
and his recent trip that brings to mind the vintage & dated attacks on Ron Paul.