My experience with many campaigns – especially for any office higher than state legislator – is that the majority of them spend their time talking about a) the fact that they need your money to run the campaign, and b) the fact that whoever they are running against is not the right person for the job. Few of them talk about the seat they are trying to fill, or the issues that are relevant to that position.
All the time spent soliciting money is time not spent promoting the candidate. It is universally understood that campaigns need funding and the candidates do have to mention that at times, but when that is the primary focus of the campaign it indicates a shallowness of purpose that seems to degrade the office they are seeking. Requests for donations should always be the sideshow of the campaign message.
Secondly, I have no reason to trust what Candidate A says about Candidate B unless I have already chosen to support Candidate A – in which case Candidate A is probably wasting time preaching to the choir.
A good legislator should not be spending their time running against an opponent, they should be running for a position. This does not mean that they cannot say anything against their opponent(s) but whatever they say against another candidate should demonstrate why the criticism is relevant to the office they are seeking. This same principle applies to what a candidate says about themselves. It doesn’t matter if a candidate bases their positive platform on “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m an Independent” or “I’m pragmatic” or “I’m experienced” in all cases what they say should be reinforced with evidence of why what they are (or claim to be) is relevant to the position they are seeking.
If the platform or message of the campaign revolves around anything other than the position they are seeking (even if it revolves around the Constitution) then the message of the campaign is distracting from the purpose that should be driving the decisions of the voters.
Leave a Reply