Senator Jim Bunning, a republican from Kentucky, is retiring from the Senate. The race to replace him includes two viable democratic challengers as well as, suddenly, two viable Republican challengers.
When Bowling Green eye surgeon Rand Paul, son of Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, declared his intention to run for the seat being vacated by Senator Bunning, many Kentucky politicians rolled their eyes. Most political observers anticipated a hard-scrabble grass roots campaign fed by internet money drives and populist stump speeches. Trey Grayson, Kentucky’s current Secretary of State, had already been courted by the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee- the leading fundraising and campaign organization for Republican Senators) and has stellar credentials. The idea that Dr. Paul could organize a feasible campaign against someone with established name recognition and a head start on fundraising seemed laughable.
But, as the Brown election in Massachusetts, the burgeoning Tea Party movement, and a host of recent polls across the country have shown, voters are angry. They are not only angry at the President (a traditional, if often unfairly so, target of voter discontent) but at anyone who smacks of “establishment Washington”. The renewed call for Congressional term limits, a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and the elimination of “pork” spending are all affectations of the electorate’s discontent. The overwhelming sentiment expressed at Tea Party rallies and on internet message boards is “kick the bastards out!” Add to this the traditionally more vocal and inspired minority of eligible voters during primary season and it looks as if every single race is a powder keg waiting to be ignited or already possessing a lit fuse.
The Paul campaign, and dozens just like it across the country should keep in mind, though, that it is February. Polling samples are small. Those who participate in polls, call in to radio shows, post on blogs, or write editorials in the newspapers (what few still exist) are a minority. They are a vocal and well informed minority, but they still represent a small segment of likely voters- even in primary season. The real “trick” is to turn that vocal minority into an actual groundswell of support. The Dean campaign of 2004 and the senior Dr. Paul’s campaign in 2008 serve as examples of how internet chatter and money-bombs do not necessarily translate into actual votes. You have to convince all your supporters to do the work of registering to vote, registering their neighbors to vote, and then going to the polling place on election day. Depressing as it is, far too many Americans find the simple act of voting to be “too much trouble”. There are still more active voters over the age of 50 than under. Those active “seniors” tend to be less vocal on the internet and far less likely to donate to primary campaigns. They do donate more towards established political action groups- but those are the very groups that Dr. Paul’s campaign have lambasted Trey Grayson’s campaign for pandering to.
Given that both Dr. Paul and Mr. Grayson have nearly identical views on government spending, abortion, national defense, immigration, and health care reform, this primary campaign will likely devolve very quickly into demonization of the opponents. I’ll keep an eye on this race and report again about platform similarities and the tone of the media campaigns.
Scarlett Says: Hold onto your hats boys, this is like to get a mite ugly.
No comments:
Post a Comment