ALIPAC: 6,717 people decide Jacob vs. Cannon Race
As a veteran of over 40 campaigns for public office, I know the range of emotions both the winner and the losers in the Jacob vs. Cannon race in Utah. The euphoric high for those that worked hard to win and the abysmal pitt of depression following any defeat.
Running for public office is like having a baby. Even the winners can go through what I call "PostPartum Political Depression" when all of the intensity fades win or lose.
The loss by the John Jacob campaign will be taken hard by many Americans in our movement to have our existing immigration laws enforced. A lot of people sacrificed time and money and placed their hopes and prayers into this race because it was turned into a bellwether race on the immigration issue.
Although I am not certain who turned it into such a litmus test, our organization ALIPAC weighed in after seeing Team America PAC's efforts and the national attention to this race. After all, that is what we created this organization for. We wanted to reinforce the other organizations and campaigns that took a stand with the public on this issue. We sent in thousands of dollars and teams of volunteers to help. Our endorsement received local press exposure and although the information was not attributed to us, our effort to expose Chris Cannon's support of in-state tuition for illegal aliens was reported on Fox News the day before the election. In effect, our operations were a success even if the John Jacob campaign was not.
From the beginning, I pointed out how much danger there is in placing to much weight into one campaign, one leader, or one organization. Fighting illegal immigration is a case where we must all fight the urge to put to many eggs into one basket so to speak although focused efforts will naturally occur.
The truth is that there are too many factors that affect the outcome of any race for a single race to be a "test" of the illegal immigration issue. Even the candidate and campaign staff that have maximum control over what does and does not occur on the campaign trail should be completely aware of the gamble in any race.
Voter demographics, geography, national trends, unforeseen blunders, fundraising, and even the weather can all affect the outcome of a race.
In the case of the Jacob vs. Cannon race, Chris Cannon was able to outspend John Jacob almost 2 to 1. The general statistical rule in campaigns is that the candidate that spends the most wins 96% of the time. Also, the John Jacob campaign turned out to be mostly self funded and there was clearly a weakness in local fund raising. Local fund raising is a big indicator.
Our candidates that run can win with less money, but they must generate funds locally. If people in the district are not properly solicited to contribute and convinced to invest their funds then the outlook is pale. A local contribution outweighs any outside contribution by a factor of 5 to 1 in my book. I've always said "I'll take one local dollar over five dollars from abroad."
Other factors that led to John Jacob's loss was the revelation about his gambling in Vegas and his "I'm fighting the Devil" comment to the media. Gambling does not fly with many in the conservative base of Utah.
I personally sympathize with Mr. Jacob's comment about fighting the devil because in a prior campaign when the Bush administration forces reached in behind the scenes to almost steal a race I was working intensely on, it felt very dark and powerful in a spiritual sense. The old adage "Somethings are better left unsaid" certainly applies here.
My sympathy for candidates is very high because of personal experience on the campaign trail and my close observations of the massive pressure a high profile campaign exerts on any man or woman. Emotions can get out of hand and extreme mental and physical exhaustion can escalate. Running for public office can put a person in a rare state that is a very uncommon state of mind. That being said, candidates must structure what they are going to say and keep many of their fears, personal feelings, and need for catharsis within the inner circle of the campaign.
The "devil" comment was quickly seized by Jacob's opponents and run up the flagpole. Whenever you see CBS reporting on one of our candidates, it will be a bad sign.
Another big factor was that one large local newspaper kept running a poll that did not line up with each campaign's interior polls and the Salt Lake Tribune's poll showing this as a close race. This other poll showed Cannon with a 15 point lead over Jacob and was inserted into countless articles and news reports. The message that was both manufactured and telegraphed via this local poll was "Chris Cannon has already won, no need for Jacob supporters to show up."
Many nations do not allow polls on campaigns to be publicized in the last weeks of campaigns to prevent this kind of abuse of the process. Polls can easily be manipulated and abused. It is one thing when a campaign uses this tactic but in this case it was used by local media.
All of these factors and many others contributed to the outcome in this race and the end results were that 6,717 more people voted for Cannon.
An encouraging factor is that many of the people voting for Cannon think they were voting for immigration enforcement. Cannon has proven himself a skillful liar that often votes for bills that contradict his pro amnesty stance. With his financial advantage, his campaign was able to bombard households in the district with positive information about him that voters liked.
Jacob's campaign had a few other very important weaknesses that I would like to point out.
First and foremost, all of our candidates need to understand that the public DOES NOT LIKE ONE ISSUE CANDIDATES. While the illegal immigration issue is a top concern, voters tend to reject someone that hangs to much weight on just one issue. The message conveyed becomes "I am an otherwise weak or desperate candidate trying to find a silver bullet." A silver bullet is a campaign issue that someone hopes will save an otherwise losing campaign. The recurring message in the Jacob VS. Cannon campaign was that they were just alike except for this one issue. All candidates should do all they can to avoid the label of "One Issue campaign"
Also, John Jacob's campaign failed to assemble a clear and distinct campaign message on his solutions to illegal immigration. It is not enough for an incumbent to be criticized as weak on the issue. Voters are looking for solutions. In the case of John Jacob, he said one solution was for illegal aliens to return to their nation (mostly Mexico) and get a 'Fast Pass' that would allow them to quickly return LEGALY.
Many of our board members had a big problem with this 'fast pass' concept. The American public and supporters of our movement do not want illegal aliens to return home to pick up a card and be back shortly. We want them to leave our nation and get in the back of the line to return if ever. Current law states that anyone found illegally in the US is prohibited from applying for legal status for 10 years. ALIPAC supports our existing laws.
We did the right thing by supporting John Jacob and taking this campaign as a learning experience. It was not our decision to elevate this race to some kind of national test of the issue, but we weighed in with our support once things were in motion.
Our efforts to elevate this issue in the campaigns and to show the American public that they need to unify and come to the table with money and time to have a national impact in many elections this November is getting through. We have a long way to go between now and November when this issue will be truly tested in a national wave of activism that will shake the nation coast to coast.
William Gheen
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
www.alipac.us
