This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College
Pete Coors: Campaign Message Strategy
Upon the completion of the U.S. Senate race in Colorado, an examination of Pete Coors’ message strategy and how he conveyed it shows why he was beaten by Ken Salazar. Throughout the course of his campaign, Coors focused on issues that were in line with President Bush’s national platform: tax cuts, strong national defense and moral values ("Salazar...Advantage"). The overriding message, however, the one he conveyed the most to Coloradoans, was that he could bring successful, real world business practices to the lawyer and politician filled Senate.
The overall tone of his campaign was not surprising a race this close. When Coors first began in the primary, he stuck to positive ads showing his business experience and ties to Colorado. After the primaries, he moved to comparative advertisements as the competition increased between himself and Salazar. The final days of the election were characterized by a series of negative-leaning comparative ads to entirely negative ads (Glazer).
Strategy:
The main message of Coors campaign relied on his past with the Coors Brewing Co., claiming that he would bring real-world business experience and fiscal responsibility to the Senate, offering uniqueness amidst the lawyers and politicians in Washington. Aside from this, Coors emphasized the issues on the national Republican platform. He restricted his campaigning mostly to the Front Range, spending his time and money in urban areas like Denver and Boulder which have a higher concentration of Democrats (Florio).
Normative Evaluation:
Coors’ campaign had several problems that explain his loss. Firstly, he only offered one major issue and credential: his background with his brewing company. Salazar and other groups like Citizens for a Strong Senate (CSS) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee were able to discredit this, casting doubt on Coors management of the company by citing environmental problems and massive layoffs.
Additionally, in an election where voters showed they were most concerned with morals, Coors lacked certain distinct, traditionally Republican stances on positional and wedge issues like the death penalty and, according to the CSS, the drinking age. Not only was Salazar able to attack Coors on those issues, but Salazar’s home style approach and ranching background allowed him to connect more with rural republicans and moderates in a way Coors did not even attempt.
Overall, Coors was unable to effectively counterattack the negative campaign against him and he undertook a lackadaisical, limited message approach to his own campaign. His meager travels allowed Salazar to “own” conservative and moderate issues by campaigning (while in jeans and cowboy hat, of course) more in rural and suburban areas, the latter of which proved to be critical (RMN Vaughan and Hubbard). In the end, the Coors Senate campaign proved to be mismanaged and ineffective.
Created by Carolyn Gilmor (cagilmor@davidson.edu) for POL 318 at Davidson College
Created: 11/15/04. Updated: 11/15/04