Campaign 101: "Frontrunners" stay in front

By election day candidates sift out into tiers: candidates with a chance to win, and the others.

Presumed frontrunners get the attention and their support snowballs. Voters don't want to waste their votes on a hopeless situation. 

Money matters

Oregon Congressional District 2

McLeod-Skinner  Photo:  Dasja Dolan Creative Photography.

Jamie McLeod-Skinner's early successful one-on-one communication to individuals and groups got translated into early money and support. She built on that with tee shirt visibility at forums, then victory in straw polls.  She made herself stand out, so when politically active Democrats talked about the pros and cons of the seven candidates, the word spread that McLeod-Skinner was probably ahead of the others.

That idea fed on itself.

The activist, involved voters who influence others looked for signs that candidates were viable.  Eric Burnette got a Teamster endorsement, which was a powerful signal, plus he got the endorsement of a Rogue Valley Our Revolution group, another powerful signal. But his snowball stopped growing, so he fell back from a potential leader to one of the pack. 

Tim White never raised any money, so his campaign was definable as a vigorous niche but one that was not taking off. 

Michael Byrne defined himself as electable because he was the sort of person who should be elected but will not be, and the notion that "stuck" was the second half of that.  

Raz Mason, too, was stuck looking unable to get big traction. J

im Crary's failure to raise individual money sent a signal that his signature issue was not motivating activists. Individual money can be raised--look at Jeff Golden and Jamie McLeod-Skinner--but the failure of Crary and the other four candidates to do so confirmed a second tier status.

By election day the focus was on McLeod-Skinner and Neahring

Failure to raise money sends a signal of a non-viable campaign.

Jennifer Neahring broke into the top tier. She had endorsements from the Bend Bulletin, plus some Democrats and well-respected physicians, some of whom donated. The money she raised allowed her to do mailers and TV ads. This sent a message: Neahring had a real shot at winning. Would her media excite voters?  It might. She had a shot. She was a contender.

By election day it was a two person race: McLeod-Skinner and Neahring, with Jim Crary--maybe, possibly--having some support out in very rural counties where he had spent time.  The election night totals confirmed this. McLeod-Skinner and Neahring stood way out in front, Crary a distant third, and everyone else stuck at the 5% of friends and true believers.

The Medford-Ashland State Senate Race

Frontrunner, then winner.

Athena Goldberg demonstrated something that Julian Bell and Kevin Stine did not do. She showed she had endorsements and significant financial and volunteer support from unions and organizations that traditionally support Democrats. It immediately distinguished her as someone running a very strong campaign. Her Voters Pamphlet page--with its prominent list of endorsements that might have gone to Golden, but did not--was especially powerful. She appeared to be taking support from people who had supported Golden in years prior. It positioned her as a frontrunner.

Meanwhile, Jeff Golden had raised early money from a hundred activist Democrats at an announcement party in 2017 and continued to do so. His position as a frontrunner was not eclipsed by Goldberg because he had something immeasurable, but clearly real and important: local support. Golden gained both the money raised and the credibility of having a campaign that could raise money. That made Golden another front runner.  It was a two person race.

Voters who thought strategically saw the candidates in tiers: Goldberg and Golden were viable candidates. Julian Bell and Kevin Stine were not because neither Bell nor Stine demonstrated they had the tools (money or pre-existing fame) to win. This missing piece creates a compound effect. No donor wants to waste money on a non-viable campaign, so their campaigns get weaker. No doubt voters who actually liked and preferred Bell or Stine voted for Goldberg or Golden. Many voters want to affect who wins, not whether a losing candidate gets 5.1% of the vote or 5.2% of the vote.

 By election day Golden and Goldberg captured 89% of the vote between them.

Does this mean that money is all important? Am I saying that the reason these four candidates had strong campaigns and the other seven did not was all about the money?

Not quite.

Two person race: Goldberg and Golden

I am saying that signals of viability are essential. Money is just one of them.

There are other ways to signal that one is "special" and that ones campaign has viability. A big public endorsement by Governor Brown or Senators Wyden or Merkley would have done it. Fame and a good reputation earned by being an incumbent politician or sports star or business person or military hero or well known media personality--any of those would have done it. But if candidates lacks those, they can distinguish themselves by proving they have support by raising local money (Jeff Golden and Jamie McLeod-Skinner) or get prestigious endorsements and money (Athena Goldberg and Jennifer Neahring.)

Otherwise voters consider you an also-ran. The result is a two-tier contest: the viable candidates and the nice-people-who-wont-win candidates.

Money raised is a signal.

[Note: I am grateful to Kevin Stine, Medford City Council Member and candidate for State Senate, for his astute, insightful post election comments about the campaign. He articulated the snowball effect of being thought a winner--and the frustration of being stuck in the lower tier, which also compounds a campaign downward.]