Brownbackfired
by Patrick Ruffini :: August 12th, 2007 11:15 amOf all the second tier campaigns, Sam Brownback’s was the best at the blocking and tackling of grassroots campaigning. They moved impressive numbers of people to Ames, spending $600,000. They placed an improbable third at CPAC. They have rock stars like Leon Wolf and Billy Valentine running their e-efforts.
And yet…
This aggressiveness also led them into running the most overtly mean-spirited campaign of the cycle. They haven’t been shy about trashing Romney, and unlike McCain, always having their name plastered all over the attack. They paid for robocalls trashing Romney and Tom Tancredo, whose pro-life credentials have never been in question so far as I can tell. They even questioned Baptist minister Mike Huckabee’s Christian bona-fides.
At Ames, all of Brownback’s targets either won (Romney) or performed far better than expected (Huckabee and Tancredo). Brownback’s third place finish would have been respectable had it not been at the hands of Huckabee, who spent a quarter of what Brownback did at Ames.
That’s leading to some pretty harsh assessments of what’s next for the Kansan:
After putting in the effort he did today and in the weeks leading up to Ames, Brownback’s third place finish will prompt questions about his ability to carry on in the race. - The Politico’s Jonathan Martin
* Brownback invested a lot into the straw poll and got little return. Finishing third behind Huckabee makes it tough for the Kansas Senator to make the argument that he is the most viable social conservative candidate in the field. This is a major setback for Brownback and could well lead to his departure from the race in the near future. - WashingtonPost.com’s Chris Cillizza
That’s rough. But it’s what happens when what should be insurgent campaigns take on the airs of political machines (see McCain, John).
Tagged: iowa 
mike huckabee sam brownback strategy
Comments (4) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Good news for the party. Brownback personifies what the average American spoonfed by the MSM comes to dislike about Republicans. Intolerant (remember the hold on the judge who had attended a family friend’s event where a lesbian’s partner was present?), isolated in a white social conservative echo chamber, and holier than thou on abortion, meanwhile feckless and weak on national security issues when the heat is on.
Why exactly did the Republican campaigns stumble all over one another to avoid being labled “not anti-abortion enough, soon enough”? The abortion issue has just gotten out of hand, no matter how strongly people feel about it the reality is: no President will be able to do much about it one way or another, except possibly through the nomination of judges.
The country at large mostly realizes it, yet the Brownbacks of this party make opposition to abortion the centerpiece of their campaigns. Outside of the usual pro-life activists, the country either yawns, shakes their head in dismay, or the pro-abortion types get equally revved up in the Democratic party.
Meanwhile, the agendas of national security, a strong dollar and low inflation, economic opportunity, a reasonable tax system, border security, free trade, competent and limited government and the advancement of liberty fade into the background, instead of becoming a bright line between the parties, which would to the Republican advantage.
Parochial primary campaign interests of positioning by Brownback and a few others cannot continue to override the party’s interests, or what little opportunity for success the GOP has in 2008 will be wasted. I suppose it’s possible to win an election by exclusion (if the groups to be excluded are small and isolated), but inclusion is more likely to be successful. The Brownbacks and Tancredos of this world don’t get it.
Huckabee at least leaves people with a sense of optimism and geniality, which probably helped elevate him past the cheerless Brownback.
Brownback has come across as very plastic in the debates, even more so than Romeny.In addition, there’s no hiding the fact that the his change of heart on illegal immigration positively REEKS of political opportunism.
Brownback’s downfall seems to have come at the hands of Rudy Giuliani. At least the rumors were that Giuliani was quietly urging his supporters to vote for Huckabee in hopes of embarrassing Romney. The other side of the coin is that Huckabee apparently seemed to be the stronger of the two candidates in the first place which is what probably led to the decision to support Huckabee rather than Brownback.
I’ve never seen where negative campaigning is very effective in a multi-party field. The negative ads might very well hurt their targets, but they fail to benefit the attacker who is simultaneously building a negative image of his own. So the beneficiaries wind up being the third party candidates who are subject to the attack. (As happened with Rockefeller against Goldwater in New Hampshire in 1964. Henry Cabot Lodge won that primary on a write-in vote. He wasn’t even a candidate).
Either that or, if you attack enough other candidates, they all start attacking you back, and you can’t spend enough to keep up with all the negative attacks against you. This is what happened to Gephart in the southern state primaries in 1988. He carried his own state by a narrow margin but lost everywhere else.
And why did Brownback choose abortion as his signature issue when all of his opponents had good anti-abortion credentials except Romney? And Romney wasn’t his real opponent in this race. His real opponent were the other second-tier candidates.