HOW TO PICK A REAL WINNING POLITICIAN

Long before the political campaigns become fodder for TV, radio, newspaper,
bumper stickers and yard signs of various sizes and colors, many of us are
solicited to fund the candidates of our choice.

While we prefer to fund a winner or at least someone with principles and
positions we can support, there are a host of other considerations. To
place your political contribution where it will make the biggest impact
focus it on the candidates who can overcome the following roadblocks. These
are listed in order of importance.

Demographics

The best candidate, even with plenty of money, cannot overcome the
opposition if the demographics are slanted heavily against him (or her).

You want to at least know that the demographics are close enough that there
is a chance of winning. A white Republican will not have a chance in a
district that is 90 percent black Democrats. It is an unfortunate flaw that
our districts are often drawn around purely politically partisan
considerations, but that is the case. Why pour money into a campaign that
faces this huge obstacle?

In general terms about a third of the voters are hard Democrats and a third
are hard Republicans. The winning candidate will be the one who can attract
the middle third that does not carry a strong party affiliation.

You will often notice that an extremely poor candidate will still get a
third of the vote because of that hard party allegiance. Individual
districts will slant this generalization greatly. If the candidate can
strongly attract the middle third he may be able to overcome unfavorable
demographics to a point, but only to a point.

Money

This is more of an issue in state and national elections than local, but
the ability to attract campaign contributions is essential. In order to
receive national party support the critical question is the candidate's
ability to raise money.

A candidate with the best platform message must be able to get the message
out to the people and this takes money. Advertising is 10 percent creation
and 90 percent communication. A great idea without the financing to get it
heard has the same effect as no idea.

Having money is no guarantee of winning and this is not the same as saying
that money will buy an election. If this were the case Guy Millner would be
governor or a senator, Ross Perot or Steve Forbes would have been president
and Buck Melton would have been mayor.

There obviously must be more than just money, but it is essential to being
a serious contender. Having $100,000 in a million dollar campaign is E.
well it is a waste of $100,000.

Campaign Staff

A serious campaign - even for a local election - requires enough supporters
to field a competent campaign staff. Go to the campaign headquarters and
check them out. Are they young, sharp and committed? Or are they an array
of friends and family who do not have any serious political experience
among them?

Politics like any business requires some special knowledge of how to raise
money and how to reach people. Done right campaigning can be a grueling
job. Outside of small local elections this is no place for amateurs. When I
asked one candidate who his finance chairman was, he replied, " I am." That
one statement said clearly that this was a limited campaign with little
thought and no serious chance. (He lost.)

Commitment

Many candidates just get fed up with the state of affairs and feel
compelled to do something and jump into a campaign without thinking it
through. They do not have the support of their family or an understanding
of how it will affect their job and their relations with friends.

They find themselves unprepared to make the sacrifices and discover this in
the middle of a campaign when they have already got some money from their
close associates.

Think though this matter hard before entering a race. Talk to lots of
people who have run unsuccessfully and successfully. If you take money for
your campaign and give anything less than a total effort you will not only
lose the election you will also lose your reputation. Before you give money
to a candidate be sure he (or she) is truly committed.

Principles And Character

It may seem cynical to place this last, but it is realistic. What good is
it to be right on the issues if you do not take the right steps to at least
have a chance of winning?

Single-issue candidates, whether it be from the left or the right, whether
it is gun rights or abortion rights, will be weaker candidates. There are
two issues I personally feel far outweigh specific issue positions: . First
is whether the candidate's political philosophy sees government more as the
solution to our problems or as a protector of our rights. Free people will
usually solve their own problems.

Unfortunately both parties promise to solve all the personal and business
problems we face without acknowledging any responsibility in creating those
problems to begin with.

Where a candidate stands on this point of government will largely determine
where he stands on most issues. . Second, and this is by far the single
most important character issue of any candidate - do they have a strong
moral center; a clear sense of right and wrong that supersedes mere
intelligence and analysis.

Intelligence without this moral center is the most dangerous sort that can
occupy political office. These are the people who think they know how to
run your life better than you do. These people are dangerous tyrants often
deluding themselves into thinking they are acting for the "good of the people".

The first sign of this catastrophic character flaw will be frequent words
of contempt for the common man or the voters in general. Listen for these
references.

Another clear indicator of the lack of a moral center is the over reliance
on polls when deciding an issue. Harry Truman, clearly a president with a
moral center, used to quip that if Moses had waited till he had taken a
poll, the Israelites would still be building pyramids.

Extreme positions will strongly handicap a campaign. Legalizing marijuana
may be a good idea (and maybe it isn't) but it will certainly not get
anyone elected.

If you want to support a radical issue you are wiser to do it through an
advocacy group (NORML for example) and not a candidate.

Candidates that relish public attention and get it from outrageous
declarations, shock talk, and controversy almost always go too far and
eventually drive their supporters away. (Are you listening Cynthia McKinney?)

Flamboyant press does not aid a political victory. Unlike show business, in
politics there is such a thing as bad publicity. The key to victory is not
name recognition; it is favorable name recognition.

Next to voting, financially or otherwise supporting your candidate is your
most important civic responsibility. Since most of us have some real
financial limits we want to spend our political money and time wisely. Put
your favorite candidates through this five-point test and see how they
fare. And don't forget to vote.