Advice to candidates: Avoid the lunatic fringe
Relying upon others is crucial for candidates for down-ballot offices, who can't raise the kind of cash that gubernatorial and senatorial candidates can. This means that they often can't afford to hire a team of campaign workers who know what to do, what events to attend, and when needed, speak for the candidate in a thoughtful manner, as well as know who is who at an event - including who not to piss off.
All too often, it's the novice candidates who, due to their lack of experience can't raise much cash or attract many seasoned politicos to support their candidacies, end up having to settle for the people who are willing to help - and end up with people whose involvement with their campaign will backfire and further damage their already-struggling candidacies.
This was my experience at my local Republican breakfast club earlier today, where I'm one of the better-known board members. A supporter, who often appoints herself to speak up for candidates she supports who don't appear at events, sometimes more than one at the same event, asked me if we allowed surrogate speakers, to which I said "no".
I will do the candidate this person supports the favor of not naming names.
SIDEBAR: The reason is for our group's "no surrogates" rule for speakers is simple: while some surrogates can put out the standard campaign spin, most can't even do that, boring the audience to death. But none are unable to answer questions from the audience. Our group's events allocate as much time for questions as for candidate speeches because we've learned that the audiences learn more from dialogue with attendees than from the standard campaign stump speeches. Therefore, a surrogate can't participate in any meaningful and informative way at our events.
It's also unfair to gives surrogates a standing equal to those candidates who made the time and the effort to attend.
It's also unfair to gives surrogates a standing equal to those candidates who made the time and the effort to attend.
While I was used to this person's shrill attitude, her tone surprised me when she leaned over and asked:
What's it gonna take for you to turn that s*** around?
In the eight years that our breakfast club has been running, we've had more than a few unusual moments, but this had to be about the strangest one - to which I responded:
She walked off, only to come up to me later, asking when certain candidates were going to be allowed to speak and then took pictures of me handling the hat in which our group has been collecting donations to help pay for a wireles microphone sound system for audience Q&A sessions.
As a board member for this group, I really don't think you or anyone you support want to piss me off.
She walked off, only to come up to me later, asking when certain candidates were going to be allowed to speak and then took pictures of me handling the hat in which our group has been collecting donations to help pay for a wireles microphone sound system for audience Q&A sessions.
She later complained about the policy to my board Chair, as well as my attitude, to no avail (thank you, Ron).
One of the candidates this lady is supporting has attracted her and others like her who are not the most effective communicators, as well as rude, demanding and even insulting. I've had supporters of this candidate question my personal sense of ethics, my honesty, and even my spiritual beliefs on a number of occasions.
Not surprisingly, I'm not the only person they've treated in such a manner.
Fairness requires me to point out that candidate and the official campaign rep I've dealt with has been courteous and respectful to me on many occasions, even though the Blogland hasn't always been nice to campaign.
Fairness requires me to point out that candidate and the official campaign rep I've dealt with has been courteous and respectful to me on many occasions, even though the Blogland hasn't always been nice to campaign.
As a candidate, as with most anything else in life, people often judge you by the company you keep. If you attract people who are knowledgeable and respected, others will want to be part of your team. If you attract people who are shrill, insulting or bullying, they'll run off people who can help make your campaign a success.
When supporters go hari-kari on local politicos, they're attacking opinion-shapers who often take it out on the candidate by not inviting them to future events, turn off other potential supporters by sharing their negative experiences, as well as by endorsing another candidate - either because they believe the other candidate is more respectful, or because they're pissed off.
The political pit bulls are often well-known by those of us who've been around for a few election cycles. They often have long histories of being associated with losing campaigns because experienced candidates and campaigners know them and avoid them like the plague. Wanting to be involved, but unable to see the damage they cause or unwilling to change their ways, they hook up with yet another naive political novice who doesn't know any better - until it's too late.
I've had more than one candidate ask me "what am I supposed to do, nobody else will help me?". I point out that if they can't attract the kind of people who can help make them a success and/or don't know who to watch out for, then maybe they shouldn't have run in the first place.
You don't have to win a campaign to win the respect of others, but those for whom winning the respect of others involved in the political process is at least as important as winning the election itself tend to fare far better on Election Day. Therefore, avoiding the lunatic fringe should be a priority for anyone who hopes to wage a successful candidacy for public office.
So I think you make the right decision. But I wonder--what if Gov. Edwards did want to speak for a few minutes on behalf of Barrett, or one of the other examples...would be not be allowed since he would be a surrogate?
There is often more learned about a candidate in the Q&A session. That includes both in what they say in response to a question and in how they respond.
We've never had a scenario like what you'd suggested, but I'd personally be inclined to oppose it, because for every one "star" who can give a canned stump speech, there will be many others who demand the same right.
One Edwards or Dawson won't make up for the decline in quality we'd get from letting twenty clueless supporters babble like idiots.
She probably was not acting in any official capacity, just looking for attention for herself, and willing to do whatever it takes.
I enjoyed the read. You do seem to be a bit hard on "new comers" though in favor of "experienced" politicos which can be seen as part of the problem in regards to career politicians. Not a knock, just an observation.
I've seen a lot of good people overreach themselves and get burned. They don't listen to me, or others like me, until after they blow it, often in a way where they'll not get a second chance - and tell me "I should've known better".
I just wish some people wouldn't get so riled up and decide to save the world, when they could slow down, think a little, get a little experience, and then come back and get fantastic candidates.
I'm not down on newcomers - just poor judgment. That includes getting into something you don't fully understand. You wouldn't want an attorney right out of law school, nor a stockbroker right out of college, so why do they think it's any more advisable to run for a major office when they've got zero experience?