A common question I get asked is: when is the time right to run a Republican against an incumbent?
This dovetails with a theory of mine: people don't like arrogant leaders and actually desire to see them brought down, regardless of whether they admit it or not. Call it schadenfreud, a German word for essentially taking pleasure in another's pain.
Mind you, this post is specific to rural counties where Democrats have traditionally dominated local races, but Republicans dominate upper ballot races.
There's a combination of factors. That ideal situation is an embattled incumbent combined with a credible candidate with extensive community engagement history. The Republican challenger should take a two-pronged approach: first, attack the imcumbent, as all challengers should do; second, stress reconcilliation and cooperation. Reach out to disaffected groups.
Example: Ed Brimner in Wakulla County, who went against a two-term Democrat incumbent Mike Stewart. Mike Stewart had a sour reputation around Wakulla as abrasive and uncaring about the people and issues in Wakulla. His only interest seemed to be uninhibited development and business interests. His treatment and humiliation of citizens was legend.
Ed seized on this and reminded everyone in Wakulla about Mike Stewart's treatment of citizens. And Ed reached out to the environmental community and the business community and brought them to his table - he emphasized, correctly, that environment and business issues are not mutually exclusive interests.
Mail combined with attack phone calls and an aggressive GOTV and absentee ballot program carried the day for Ed.
My next post will deal with another example, back in Hamilton County.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
