Election Basics

An accurate analysis of election results requires getting down to the basics. Too often the mechanics of winning elections are lost in the message. Here is the most basic question: What determines the outcome of an election? The answer is simple: Receiving the majority of votes.

The operative word for any challenger against an incumbent is change. In order for a challenger to beat an incumbent in an election, he must convince the voters that change is needed. The bottom line is that in 2006, the Democrats convinced the majority of voters that change was needed. In contrast, the operative phrase for an incumbent is, "change will make things worse." Republican incumbents failed to convince enough voters that change in leadership is a bad idea.

What contributed to this sense that change in leadership was needed? The persistent whining and character assassination by the liberal media, the appearance of worsening conditions in Iraq and no apparent progress, and the highlighting of corruption in the Republican Party. Republicans can't change the liberal whining, but they can do something about successful leadership and corruption in their ranks.

Here is another basic principle to consider. The majority of people do not vote for a message. They vote for personal security and safety: financial and family. "Life, liberty, and happiness" are more easily pursued in a safe environment. Thus, voters elect those who have gained their confidence to provide better living conditions. Voters reject those who appear to be less competent or who are less familiar to them.

For example, the fact that Republicans can win in Arkansas (John Boozeman, Frank White, Ronald Reagan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Hutchinson, and John P. Hammerschmidt) shows that people are not necessarily voting for a party or for principles. They are voting for candidates they believe will provide competent leadership that will secure their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

From one election cycle to the next, the same electorate vote for candidates from different parties and who have different messages. So, what do all winners have in common? They have won the confidence from the majority of voters. In other words, having the right message does not win the majority of votes. To be sure, the message content of a candidate is important, but it is obviously not preeminent. The promised outcome is preeminent. More specifically, voters must be convinced that a candidate can successfully provide greater safety and security for the voter.

I submit that conservative candidates must design a strategy for the next two years to recapture control of the House and Senate on these principles:
1. Voters vote for safety and security
2. Change is needed
3. Democratic incumbents are a threat to the well being of voters.

Democratic incumbents cannot be trusted.

Democratic incumbents policies have sacrifice safety and security.

4. Voters can have confidence in conservative leadership.

Principled, trustworthy, and competent leaders who lead successfully

Offer policy solutions with predictions of positive results

Offer critiques of Democratic policies highlighting failed results

The bottom line is that conservatives must go beyond their message. They must convince the majority of those who cast their votes that conservative leadership will improve the voters' safety and security.