This year, at both the state and local level, a surprising number of elections are slated for November. These include the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia, congressional seats in Texas and Tennessee, and several dozen mayoral elections nationwide.
To conservatives it would seem that across the board, Democrat candidates should be in peril. Concurrently, it is confounding to witness a superior, right-leaning candidate who loses to someone who is not nearly as qualified, brilliant, or ready to lead. You shake you head and think, how could this happen?
Start Early, Finish Strong
Given that no election fraud occurs (a constant concern), reasons abound as to why the best candidate, actually on either side of the aisle, can end up losing. Foremost is that they seek to manage their own campaign and then devote too much time in the office, rather than being out among the voting populace.
Some candidates fall into a complacency trap thinking, “My policies are better,” “my track record is clear,” “my leadership skills are well-established,” etc. I don't need to press the flesh all that much. Intelligent voters know that I'm the best choice. Really?
Prudent candidates hire a campaign manager and consultants who advise them on handling critical issues while presenting their best self to voters. Such help is expensive and can deplete a campaign budget in a hurry. Some candidates, who otherwise appear to be the superior choice, do not establish a viable campaign plan which includes budgetary constraints.
As we’ve seen in recent years, campaigns everywhere are beginning earlier and earlier. Some campaigns commence with insufficient time to get the word out, establish name recognition, and attractive a bevy of supporters. Beginning early is vital for candidates seeking to win. Campaigning for president, of course, now begins at least two years before an election and in many respects encompasses all four years right after an election.
Landmines to Side Step
In communicating with the voting public it's crucial to demonstrate consistency. Kamala Harris flip-flopped on so many key issues that sympathizers were unsure of her positions.
Even non flip-floppers can become unduly influenced by polls. Polls are merely one potential measure of a candidate’s standing. Polls can be manipulated or skewed and frequently are. They can focus on the wrong issues. In today's highly partisan climate they are often unreliable indicators of potential election results.
With the unrelenting pressure that the Left exerts in society on anyone who disagrees with their views, in November 2024, many people were reticent to tell pollsters that they were voting for Donald Trump. Also, the strength of voters’ views is a decent indicator as to how motivated voters are to cast ballots and to influence others. Asking a mild question and receiving a mild response doesn't yield data that leads to reliable election forecasts.
Negativity and Incumbency
Besmirching ones opponent is often effective. In today's climate of negative advertising, particularly on TV, the victor frequently is simply the one with the largest treasure chest.
The smeared candidate needs to let go of relatively minor attacks and must have a sense of when or when not to address them. On major attacks which generate prolonged news coverage, one cannot simply hope that the issue will die down. Especially for GOP candidates, one needs to address the issue head-on with the aim of nuking or at least minimizing it.
Dozens of other faux pas exist particularly among candidates running for office for the first time. Hence, an incumbent who has otherwise not been a disaster has an inherent advantage over a newbie. At the outset, the incumbent has name recognition far more than a challenger.
If an incumbent has failed in major ways then the challenger can benefit from a slingshot effect, being the new kid on the block with better ideas and being more in tune with the will of the people.
Get Back on the Horse
In any event, in a two-person race, someone has to lose. Many of the losers politically are never heard from again. This is a shame because many of them have much to offer.
When it comes to primary races within one's own party, among four or five viable candidates, only one can emerge and be the party’s standard bearer. Too often, the others quietly go away and their skills and capabilities are lost to the party and lost to the populace. Not good. There ought to be a mechanism for harnessing the skills and capabilities of primary candidates who did not prevail.
One excellent reason to keep them in the loop is that they can become even better candidates in the next election cycle.