To make myself more clear. Incumbants were doing well 'enough' during the time they were home and campaigning, but, as soon as they returned to Washington, DC and were 'on the job' their poll numbers started to drop in small increments.
The extremist candidates ALL have the same story. Even Brown in Massachusetts says the same thing, "Face to Face" contact with voters made the difference in their candidacy.
The people being elected, like Brown, are the best people to be in office. They let their backbone slip to 'pander' to the voter. They have no 'real ideas' so much as they allow themselves to be lead around by the nose.
The point is, most of the extremist candidates do not have a voting record regardless of their 'repeated' attempts at being in office. They can lie all they want and so long as they retract their lies 'in time' they can cover their tracks. They frequently lie to 'introduce' paranoia into the electorare. To retract the statement later is simply an expression of 'character' and a 'statement of being human and capable of error' no different than the electorate. I have witnessed this strategy before with "Talk Radio." They introduce a lie and then retract it when they are 'caught.' They don't care about facts, they care about 'exposure.' The extremist candidates are using the same 'media savvy methodology' to 'entertain voters.'
O'Donnell is the second candidate that I know of, that the Republicans promoted with a media history. Brown was the first. His spouse is a reporter on the television and has the experience to coach him.
The Republicans are running dishonest campaigns including that of Murkowski. They are seeking to place their defeated incumbants into 'third party' candidacies knowoing they won't win in order to syphon off votes from the Democrats. Murkowski is the second incumbant we have seen that with and Crist is the first. Incumbants do carry clout with the electoate and convincing the voter they are better off thinking about the two Party candidates is a better way of approaching it.
If I were running for office today, I would have surrogates 'on the ground' in my districts and states canvassing the electorate no different than the candidate would but can't because they are doing their job in DC. I would run against the Republican candidate and NOT the 'independant or libertarian.' In Florida, Meek needs to run against Rubio and not Crist. This is NOT a Democratic primary. I would also demand equal time by the media whenever the opposition from any party appeared in the media.
I would show the voter I cared about them more than anyone else and 'be available' for campaigning 'as the opportunity' presented itself to be known as the best qualified candidate and the one that could provide their best opportunity in DC.
This election isn't as much Anti-Establishment as it is about exposure. Face - to - Face contact. Door to Door. I don't believe the electioneering has changed all that much, it is just that we are living in an age of 'the individual' and having a Facebook site or any social media site is important, but, it 'isn't all that' when it comes to influencing the voter on election day. Contact with the electorate at every turn is what this is about. Both Brown and O'Donnell are well honed to 'striving' for attention and have histories of 'performing' in difficult races. I would concentrate on those dynamics before I would simply say it was the Democratic incumbant that was the issue. That isn't all of it in my opinion.
This is also the year of the 'homophobic voter.' If DC isn't stopped soon they have lost their identity. Homophobia is real in the USA and everyone needs to count on that being an issue. The extremists are homophobic themselves, so their plight with 'this voter' is over.
The extremist candidates have a 'rant.' It is more than a stump speech, it is a rant that they 'exhibit' when being interviewed or in debates. I'd pay attention to it and rehearse it and incorporate a 'reasonable' amount of the dogma into a campaign rant myself.
Debates up to election day is an excellant idea. McCain won votes just before his primary from the 'last minute' debate on television. We know for a fact that 'reasonable' candidates 'pick up votes' immesediately after a debate and before the opposition can lie and rant again. Usually 2 to 3 points at least. I would not shy away from 'last minute' debates. As a matter of factif I were an incumbant, I would demand them.
Good luck.
