tom

Your after action report is interesting, but out of curiosity, what issues besides coming out against the stimulus were working with the electorate in your district?

Sort of when Jim Tedisco spoke on the stump about X people seemed to listen, seemed to resonate with what he was saying. I realize that sort of response is hard to gauge, but overtime with the campaign you might have got a feel for what connects with ordinary folks in your district.

steve,

I was so immersed in fund raising that I paid little attention to what the campaign was doing (other than the OBVIOUS, which is what I just wrote about).

That said, the only issues that I can recall that resonated were: 1) he continually said he wouldn’t raise taxes, 2) he was against Card Check (thank god), and 3) he railed against Wall St. & the AIG bonuses.

The bulk of his appeal IMO was his personality. He is a very engaging, and a very motivating speaker.

That’s an interesting After Action Report and I agree that NY-20 is exactly the kind of blue state district in which vigorous opposition to the stimulus would have played well.

I do have a question about advertisements though. Your diary implies that he went primarily negative. Not living in or near the district I didn’t see much of it, so I’m wondering whether he attacked Murphy personally or the Obama administration, or what?

The only ad I saw, was the one posted on Redstate a couple of times which used Murphy’s opposition to the death penalty as an excuse to trot out the 9-11 hijackers and I remember just being gobsmacked with how politically tone-deaf it was and hoping that this was not something which was going to actually make it onto the airwaves.

-exits

Well-founded, fact-based negative campaign ads makes voters scrutinize candidates more, and prevents candidates from basing an entire campaign on vague bromides and unfulfilled promises. I do not, however, appreciate campaign ads composed entirely of smears.

I suppose Tedisco’s ads could have been a little more positive, but I thought most of them were spot on.

If you ask me what Tedisco’s main problem was, I would have to say Tedisco. IMHO, he was a pretty lame candidate.

George, I also don’t mind negative campaigning either, if it’s well-founded and fact based. I know they work. My point was that it seemed as if it was 90% negative and I was suggesting more balance – especially in the beginning few weeks.

But the ads were of a secondary issue – at least with me. Not taking a strong position on what I thought was THE most important issue fed into his opponents narrative about Tedisco – he was just another “Albany politician.”

I also observed that it seems as if there’s a different “standard” between Republicans & Democrats. I believe that it’s only Republicans (many of who are RINO’s) who don’t like it when Republicans go negative. Whereas Dems love it when a Dem attacks a Republican.

Consistency does….the bottom line in any election is do you or do you not allow your opponent to define you. If you are consistently principled you make that much harder for them to do. Once you delve into micro targeting and varying principles by issue you lose…that is if you are a republican…democrats don’t have this problem because they don’t work on principle at all…they only pander pander pander…while waiting for the opportunity to make their opponent look like a hypocrite.

Aaron, I think you are exactly right, on every point.

You only lost by 400 votes in a district that had been trending democract. A win would have bee nice. But, as has often been stated here, in a democracy, sometimes the other guy wins. Stick to your principles and come out fighting another day.

but for responding to the comments. Too often we get incumbents, candidates and staffers who post here, and they just toss the diary into the mix and ignore the comments.

Please come back. And encourage Jim to drop by as well.

Maybe it’s because I’m neither an incumbent, candidate or staffer. Just a volunteer. Or more likely, I’m very new to blogging and find the whole process fascinating. It’s great discussing something we’re all passionate about.

The trolls do get annoying though. They like to argue. I like to discuss.

I also have great respect for Erick. I’ve learned a lot getting into Twitter, blogging and FB. There are are some very smart and talented people I can learn from.

I voted for Tedisco.

But he was a TERRIBLE CANDIDATE.

He doesn’t't live in the district. He came across as an Albany hack who isn’t very bright. He didn’t seem to have a clue about what he thought, or why, and the good-looking liberal Harvard guy ate his lunch.

It was a huge error not to nominate John Faso or Sandy Treadwell.

The NY State Republican chairman should resign. There was no reason to lose this race. But now with reapportionment coming, a chunk of Albany will be dumped into the district and it will be Blue forever. Nice going, Republicans.

(Remember that Mr. Barrret, former chairman of the NY State Republican Party, is having a fundraiser for Andrew Cuomoe (!) if you want to see how pathetic is the NY State Republican apparatus.)

“Lesson learned: Sometimes you have to ignore the campaign professionals and act on principle.”

With all due respect, acting on principle is the only way the Republican party will become relevant once again.

Until the party roots out every member who is not acting on principle they will not gain the widespread support of conservatives at large. Sure we have been voting for the Republicans as the lesser of two evils, however, to spark a grassroots groundswell of support we need anti-candidates that do not need “professionals” to tell them how to think.

The race once agin proved to me that Imagery still wins day to most voters

A youthful, family oriented guy vs Career politician with bit of Sopranos in him ( I am Italian so I can say this)

Voters love the young guy with cute family

Look at the NY 20. The WWII generation is disappearing a the polls.

We need new strategies.

It is refreshing to at least have a campaign staffer voicing his opinions after a losing campaign in an open forum rather than as an unnamed source for the MSM, as those cowards working for John McCain did.

Newt Gingrich referred to Republican campaign consultants as a fundamentally stupid class of people with no sense of history or capacity for long-term thinking.

NOTE to all Republicans; the job of a campaign consultant is not to tell you what position to take, whether it be in a campaign or in office. It’s your job to figure out your position and it’s his job to help you sell it.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

than we learn from victories. But only if people will honestly analyze the defeat and change whatever tactics didn’t work.

I especially liked this paragraph:
“Once he took that middle road, taking no position, his opponent was able to define him as a “typical politician.” Lesson learned: Sometimes you have to ignore the campaign professionals and act on principle.”

Though I would break them out as 2 separate lessons.

“Once he took that middle road, taking no position, his opponent was able to define him as a “typical politician.” ” This is how Blago won Illinois last time. He defined Judy Topinka for Governor and her response was weak. He spent about a year running negative ads on Judy and positive ads on himself in about 50% measure. Judy burned most of her cash fighting a primary campaign.

“Lesson learned: Sometimes you have to ignore the campaign professionals and act on principle.” As stated above, a Republican always has to stand on principal.