This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.
Mark Couch offers this campaign summary: “Salazar led the way in fundraising, he controlled the airwaves, he captured news coverage and he cashed in on a burst of volunteer support” (Couch 2004). With a strong organization (including $8.5 million to Coors’ $7.3 million)(Hubbard 2004), the Salazar campaign crafted its socially conservative yet populist message to a broad constituency, also attacking Coors’ personal (“out of touch”) and strategic (negative, vague issue stances) weak points (Glazer Coors 2004)(Sprengelmeyer 2004).
Despite the factual base of the strategy argument, Salazar’s personal qualities contributed more fundamentally to his victory. First, the attorney general emerged as a candidate and convinced primary voters of his suitability for the job, He translated a history of public service into appealing political ambition of vocational integrity (Allen).
Secondly, voters identified with Salazar’s character and elected a person, not a message. Where some Democrats see a strategic blueprint “by playing up traditional values, faith and rural heritage while hammering home a populist message that including bashing tax cuts for the rich…and getting a boost from fellow Hispanics,”(Dear Dems 2004), Salazar in fact lived in the conservative rural class, identifies with many social groups, and is Hispanic. The exit polls reveal significant defection to Salazar’s side, both in contrast to voters’ presidential choice and their most salient issue. In both cases, Salazar won more voters who otherwise voted Bush, and for the same reasons they voted for Bush (US Senate Colorado 2004).
Thirdly, as note, personal qualities indirectly strengthen strategic qualities (Maisel, Stone, and Maestas 2001). Salazar’s proficiency in fundraising, message proliferation, and grassroots campaigning draw either directly on personal appeal, such as convincing a donor for a contribution of money or time, or indirectly through attraction of national donations (58% of funding)("Colorado" 2004). In fact, the one purely strategic advantage – ready funds from personal wealth – was a personal liability – voters rejected millionaires like Coors (Rulon 2004).
The ethical standard of campaign integrity – consistency of promises and actions – illuminates the Salazar strategy in uneven light. On the one hand, Salazar openly sharply focused on his person. The cowboy hat, pick-up truck, and emphasis on his experience (Glazer Salazar 2004) were not themselves disingenuous. However, the independently-minded Democrat (effectively) skirted the reality of Washington and thus revealed an inconsistency in message – independence, social conservatism – and future job performance, which requires party loyalty and national representation of Hispanics (Crummy 2004), not merely Colorado’s Land, Water, and People.
Coors inspires the exactly opposite ethical evaluation. He evaded or dissembled most discussion of his person, literally laughably (Lofholm 2004). On the issues he offered few specifics except pledged adherence to the Republican platform and President Bush, a commitment he would have maintained in Washington considering his early connections with the national Republican Party (Beer Today… 2004).