Home | Entries [Previous |Next]
3 Comments
The dirty little secret of 2006 is that Corker's ground game was superior to Bryant's. Van's was non-existent. Also, if Ed had been running a better race, Van would not have gotten in. Corker did not buy the election, he outworked Ed.
Posted by: Rick Jones | January 25, 2007 03:10 PM
Rick is correct. Bryant's ground game was unacceptable. Most of the people who did help them were paid to do so(much like Corker's). Plus, they relied to heavily on phone calls. Old-fashioned door-knocking is the way to go. David Davis had the best ground game of any candidate in the state and only employed 2-4 people, depending on which part of the race you talk about. I am confused as to how it wasnn't first or second. Didn't he also get outspent by nearly $1,000,000 and have a ceremonial campaign manager who wasn't even paid, forcing Davis to rely primarily on two guys in their early 20s to get all the day-go-day operations done? Best campaign goes to David Davis in the primary(he was non-existent in the general and employed no one). If you're still in doubt, go with the one who took home the W despite being outspent by three people and by over $1,000,000 by one candidate alone.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 08:04 PM
for January 23, 2007
Best in Politics Winners: Best Campaign 2006
2006 Best Campaign
Ed Bryant
2002. What a year for Congressman Ed Bryant. He left his position as a rising star conservative congressional leader with his role as one of the impeachment managers of President Bill Clinton – to come back to Jackson, Tennessee and start a political legacy that can only be described as a Tennessee edition of Don Quixote. The stately Bryant, who was often described as the quintessential college government professor, had chosen to run against legendary Tennessee political don – Lamar Alexander. In the minds of many insiders, it might as well not have been a race. But Bryant took his campaign seriously. Seriously enough to garner 22 counties and 44% of the Republican primary vote, after going for the throat and calling Lamar a “plaid” on the issues.
In some ways, the 2002 campaign was the defining moment for Bryant. His tactics and grassroots conservative style alienated many of the same powerbrokers that eventually contributed to his second straight Republican primary loss in 2006 – this time to Bob Corker. But that was only after he ran the best campaign of the year – a better campaign than Corker ran in those days. You see sometimes a campaign can be the best and not win, frequently they are. Sometimes other things, inevitable things, are working against you and the votes just don’t add up. That was the case with Bryant.
After 2002, it was clear Bryant intent of that election was to increase his statewide name recognition, form “solidly” conservative credentials, and build a path to eventual victory with the cobblestones of conservative grassroots lobbying organizations like home-schoolers, right-to-lifers, and tax protestors. While Bryant’s tactics alienated some, it brought hope to others in the form of a predictable non-compromising vote on all the issues import to social conservatives.
Before the 2006 campaigns began in earnest, the White House was saying it would be close between Bryant and moderate Bob Corker, who had locked up some of the major fundraisers turned off by Bryant. Then came Van. Van Hilleary, a fellow conservative from the same Congressional class as Bryant was riding a wave of high name identification and polling numbers that showed as much. Before the campaign began in earnest, Hilleary met with White House political advisor Karl Rove, who laughed when Hilleary, polling numbers in hand, told the RNC that he was entering the race to become the next Senator from Tennessee.
Not moved by the shrug of the “turd blossom,” Hilleary entered the fray and suddenly our Don Quixote’s political dreams were once again turned to fighting windmills. Bryant should have known that chasing the dream of becoming the Senator from Tennessee, even though it was clearly due him, was another quest that would inevitably lead to defeat. Still Bryant, persisted – and took his campaign seriously.
The budget in Bryant’s campaign was shoestring, but his loyal supporters and staff worked for their leader for practically nothing, doing some of the best political targeting in the state – to tap into both the Republican grassroots organizations Bryant had in his pocket as well reach out and target voters who matched the demographic profile. Bryant’s staff worked tirelessly to generate the free press that they could not afford with paid TV ads. And Bryant’s outreach to the Internet was the best that a Republican - or Democrat either really - has ever done in state history.
Although he got outspent by astronomical proportions and was double crossed by his political best friend, Bryant still walked away with 17 counties and 33.5% of the vote in his own right. Assuming many Hilleary supporters would break to Bryant, some politicos estimate Bryant could have won the Senate primary with a narrow majority and up to 51 counties if Hilleary had stayed out. That’s not a bad record for a man with the integrity of a college professor in tweed instead of a politician in black anyway.
Note -- Voting on this one was close. You preferred Bryant to Harold Ford, Jr., another failed candidate in 2006, by just a few percentage points. If this vote doesn't prove the loyalty of the Bryant grassroots - and why they are deserving of this award, I don't know what does.
No one deserves this more than Ed Bryant's campaign. From the beginning everyone said it wouldn't be possible. Yet, Ed's supporters never waivered. They knew he was a long shot thanks to Hilleary. They knew Ed would be outspent $10 mil to $2 mil. They knew that every poll leading up to the primary had Hilleary and Bryant hovering at 20% and Corker hovering at 60%.
In hindsight the sense of impossible was accurate. But, Bryant's supporters would do it again. Bryant's supporters are generally made up of social and fiscal conservatives with deep convictions. They believe in the cause more than the messenger.
For such a large number of republicans to stay loyal so long and against such odds says a lot about the supporters and the candidate they believed in.
In the end, the winner spent $8 million more than Ed in order to beat Ed by 15%. Ed's name recognitin was still under 25% in East Tennessee on primary day. Anywhere where Ed's name recognition was equal to the winner then Ed won.
It was a tough campaign. And, Corker deserved to win. He raised the money and he earned the votes. But, it certainly doesn't hurt to recognize that Ed's campaign did far more with far less money.
Posted by: Chris Clem | January 24, 2007 03:47 PM