Point of View
Why I Deservedly Lost
By John Armor
May 18, 2008 - 12:18:35 PM

Many candidates in many primaries across the nation have written statements after their defeats.  I may be the first to use a title like this.
   In more than 750 columns I’ve been unstinting in praise of able achievements and honest politicians. (Yes, there are some of each.)  And I have been merciless against incompetence and stupidity.  I owe the same integrity in discussing myself.
   My third and last run for public office ended this Tuesday.  It was not a pretty sight.  In a three-way contest for the Republican nomination for Congress from the 11th District of North Carolina, I ran third.  The other candidates got 49 percent and 41 percent.  I drew a mere 10 percent.  And the fault for that is mine.
   I did one thing precisely right.  We candidates had eight live debates.  Five were televised.  My Internet guru posted them on the net with click links on my webpage.  In those debates, I demonstrated more experience, more knowledge, and better ability to serve, than my opponents.
   That’s an extraordinary claim.  I offer only the tapes as evidence. View any part of any of the debates.  Reach your own conclusions about my qualities.
   But if that’s so, why did I do so poorly in the election?
   I had too little staff.  Full time, or nearly full time, I had my fiancée, Michelle Mead, and my net guru, best known by his screen name, MitchellC.  Both gave their best, along with me, but that’s too little staff for any congressional campaign.
   Connected to that was lack of money.  On the FEC filing date, 20 days before the primary, I had neither raised nor spent the required minimum of $5,000.  I exceeded that before the election.  But that was effectively zero.
   My lawn signs were among the cleanest, most readable for any candidates in western Carolina.  Again, don’t take my word for it.  See the design that is on the upper left side of my website.  But again, critically, this was too little, too late.
   One of the most famous quotes from Ralph Waldo Emerson was, “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.”  It’s a clever quote that seems to state a universal truth.  But Emerson actually said, “If a man has good corn, or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell ... you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house.”
   Those words are not as clever, but the concept is there.  Quality will out, and he who offers it, will succeed.  But two, absolutely essential elements are missing from that equation: marketing and advertising.
   Half of the marketing is done in advance for all candidates.  The North Carolina State Board of Elections will cheerfully sell the complete record of all voters in any district, by name, address, and voting history.  Polling to find the political views of targeted voters is simple.  But of course, that requires money – “the mother’s milk of politics,” as the legendary Jesse Unruh once said.
   Effective marketing identifies who you want to reach, and in what order.  Here’s a brief description of my District: about 40 percent Democrats, 39 percent Republicans, and 21 percent independents.  Because many independents and some Democrats are conservative, this District has usually votes conservative.
   In the era of satellite TV and the Internet, the possibilities for targeted
advertising are clear – messages directed very specifically to very precise audiences.  Add to that targeted mailings, and advertising on the many small radio stations, and it is easy to communicate with individuals with well-crafted
messages.  But again, that requires money.  
   Lastly, there are the no-brainer steps that every candidate knows.  Ideally, he would cover every polling place for its 12 open hours with two people at all times, which means six people total for 6-hour shifts, plus relief.  All these people are volunteers.  But it takes money to provide the transportation and communications support for these people, and equip them with materials.
   In short, I not only lacked the funds and staff I needed, I knew two months out that those defects were likely fatal.  By that practical standard, which has nothing whatsoever to do with either issues or personal qualities, I deserved to lose.
   If I had gotten half of all the voters in my district to look at any of the debate videos, I would have had a chance of a possible run-off.  Or, half of all the Republican leaders to watch those videos and tell others about them.  But both of those were impossible.
   So is there a moral or lesson here?  It is this: ideas and visions, even very good ones, are necessary but not sufficient in elective politics.  For the balance of my days, I will go back to being a writer.  I’ve retired as a candidate, and turn that over to younger men and women.

© Copyright 2008 by San Francisco News