It’s that simple. It’s a fact that some candidates lost because they didn’t raise enough money and/or didn’t door knock hard enough.
And that’s not anyone’s fault except the candidate’s. The candidate alone is responsible for the effort. The result is influenced by many factors but a strong effort on the part of the candidate is often times a necessary ingredient, especially for Republicans, who have no “gimme” seats.
Which brings us to the amendments. Simply put, the amendments backfired, failing to deliver the turnout punch many had hoped for.
In fact, the amendments went the other way, motivating turnout for the crowd opposed to the amendments.
The Watchdog spoke with a political operative who was involved with a liberal organization working to elect DFLers to the legislature.
This operative was of the strong opinion that the amendments, especially the marriage amendment, increased DFL voter enthusiasm, especially in college areas.
He chalked up the defeat of Rep. King Banian (R-Saint Cloud) to the amendment battle, as well as the legislative losses of both Travis Reimche and Phil Hansen in the Moorhead area.
In addition to firing up college crowds, the gay marriage amendment no doubt helped to contribute to the gender gap the GOP experienced.
Moreover, the campaigns for both these amendments were horribly executed. The people responsible for these campaigns were outraised, outspent, outhustled, outworked, and outthought.
Remember, the forces behind these amendments had the initiative. The ballot questions were selected and passed by the legislature at the time of their choosing.
The ball got fumbled in a big way and many people paid a price for it.
To watch the photo ID amendment drop like a rock in the polls made both the Emmer and Bills campaigns look like Karl Rove masterpieces.
Talk about a need to rethink things. We thought the Emmer campaign was the worst major campaign in party history. And then came the Bills campaign. And then came the photo ID campaign. And the marriage amendment campaign.
Four catastrophic campaigns in back to back cycles.
[emphasis added] As stated at the start, some know more about winning elections than I do. I can even be simpleminded about some things, a fault I am not entirely happy having. Yet, what is common between these two images?
Perhaps something more basic than quality of the marketing of a product is at issue. Perhaps before forming judgmental answers to a problem knowing what the problem is may prove wise. It might not be flawed sizzle, it might be a flawed steak.
By the way, what's a Karl Rove masterpiece? I do not understand a thing about that term, while understanding a bit about Karl Rove.
Is this a Karl Rove masterpiece?
It must be the pearls?
_________UPDATE__________
Is Romney-Ryan at the top of the ticket and the much viewed 47% video properly written off as irrelevant to down-ticket outcomes, all that, a disease of extreme myopia or a necessary narrowing of the variables to a manageable set saying (to some) get rid of the Ron Paul people?
An analysis insensitive to possible effects arising from the top of the ticket is surprising in that the analysis did notice the amendments down-ticket that failed as stupendously as Romney-Ryan failed.
Romney-Ryan seems the lower hanging fruit.
 |
| This land is my land, this land is your land, from Scott's Wisconsin, to the rich Long Island. This land it's ripe for you and me. |
It must be time to go back to the good old days of McCain-Palin. What?
Sutton and Brodkorb were purged because of the 2010 Republican election results in Minnesota on their watch, or for somebody's ideological purity litmus color showing wrong? And Brodkorb-Koch plus the escalating litigation cost of that entire Republican fiasco is yet more proof the Ron Paul candidates did not work hard enough?
I am missing parts of the argument, not suitably attuned to nuance, confused by my own limitations to understand. Is there a friendly Republican who can supply the missing parts of the puzzle in a comment?