The place of issues in a campaign
Over today at Sibby Online, Steve brings up a point I agree with him on. And I disagree with him on it, both at the same time. And while he might disagree with me on that, there’s good reason, and a good point for discussion in this upcoming campaign season.
Consider campaign school back in session:
Kranz told me he wasn’t going to include that and tried to convince me that it would be better if I wrote a letter to the editor to cover the issue. Kranz is more interested in tabloid than the issues. And anybody who has followed this web site through the years understands the difficulty I have had getting facts printed with letters to the Argus Leader. Also on Thursday night, I was told by a respected Republican that I will have difficulty having a campaign based on issues.
and…
Pat Powers has said repeatedly that the main focus for Republicans should be to stop the bleeding of Senate seats. Why can’t the focus be on doing what is right for South Dakota? Elections should instead be focused on issues.
So what is (or are) the place of issues in a campaign? Steve notes that he believes that “elections should instead be focused on issues.” And ideally, I absolutely agree, they are. In a perfect world, that’s all we should care about.
Too bad we don’t live there.
Here’s where the disagreement comes in. In the real world, issues have a time and a place. In fact, they’ve got a very good place. The problem that Steve expresses his disappointment over is the same one many passionate about politics bring up – that issues come second. And in many instances at the local and state level, the second priority in what campaigns are about ends up being at the end of the campaign because they spend so much time working on the first priority.
In our imperfect world, people base their votes on several factors. And the truth is, whether they know a candidate or not is the most important thing in the eyes of many voters. In other words, NAME ID comes first, issues second.
When George Mickelson first ran for Governor, statewide, he said his name ID was around 4%. His campaign literally had to take him from four percent to Governor. That meant that an incredible amount of time and expense was strictly devoted to letting the voters across the state know who George Mickelson was and what he was running for, long before he could talk about taxes and economic development.
Drop that to a legislative level for someone who has never held office, and doesn’t have nearly the advertising budget that a statewide race has – how much time do you think they have to spend just to introduce themselves? How much of their resources have to be invested in telling people “John Doe for State Senator.” If you’re not the incumbent, darn near all of them.
The politicians who truly “get it” on this know the truth in the adage that you’re never as famous as you think you are. In an election, that adage has been proven over and over again. Lazy incumbents are very often beat by young up and comers who go out and introduce themselves to the people when the incumbent doesn’t think they have to do that anymore.
Guess what? Yes, you still have to. And they still need to make sure they know what they were elected to.
Because if the voters don’t know who you are, and don’t associate your name with the office you’re running for, you’re sunk. If you took the time and expense of beating that into their heads so much, it’s an automatic association, by all means, run on the issues. Tell us where you are on taxes, etcetera. It matters to us, especially those who have been involved with the process. But you have to cross the first hurdle of the people voting for you actually knowing who in the heck you are.
For you candidates out there (Steve included), by all means – tell us where you stand on the issues. It is extremely important to us, and it truly matters in the big scheme of things.
But make sure we know your name and what you’re running for first.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
PP, how about:
“Anonymous for Congress — you know what I stand for, but would YOU put YOUR name on it?”
Then point out that just as voting is secret, why shouldn’t candidates be.
End by saying “Vote for me and I’ll do all the things you and The Old Coot are afraid to ask for in person.”
In short, why not start a whole “Anonymous Movement,” kinda like your website here?
Fringe benny, everybody could save a ton of design bucks using the same logo and “picture.”
Maybe they all wear Zorro costumes or something. (Wink.)
You have done a outstanding job or articlating the problem with politics these days but your conclusion is 180 degrees incorrect. The first priority is control not governance or “doing what is right for SD”. Without articlating the issues the voter can only make choices based on name recognition. I suggest that if candidates talk about their vision and position on important issues…right, wrong, or indiferrent….voters will cast their ballots accordingly. The risk is that maybe nobody agrees with your position and you may not get elected but isn’t that what democracy is all about and how real progress is acheived?
Then again we do live in the real world where control is the priority and political parties, special interest groups, media, and campaign consultants need job security. Why would they encourage a discussion of the issues it just might make them irrelavant.
Our fore fathers knew something we have lost sight of …..democracy works when given the chance. All we need are leaders committed to changing the status quo and engaging in a meaningful debate of the issues. My 20 yr experience as a party activist tells me that voters will do the right thing; now if we could just get our political leaders to step up and lead instead of listening to the conventional wisdom of the status quo prophets.
Hopefully now you snooparazzi will be happy.
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2008/Bills/SB2SLO.htm