This page is an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College
2004 Colorado Senate Race
Early in the campaign, Ken Salazar’s candidate background was cited as his greatest asset towards electoral victory. In fact, one article entitled: “Ken Salazar’s story is made for a political campaign” highlighted his background as a key feature towards gaining support from Republican and Independent voters (Bartels, Ken 1). One way that Salazar was able to peel away many Republican votes was by appealing to rural Americans. Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee explains: “He [Ken Salazar] pays homage to the beliefs and values of rural voters, while also staying true to the core Democratic values. I think that combination is instructive for the type of candidate that we need and the type of appeal we need (Florio, Rural 2).”
On the contrary, other political analysts have cited Salazar’s moderate agenda as the cornerstone of his victory (Couch, Despite 1). While there is some controversy over the classification of his agenda as moderate or liberal, the reality is that most constituents don’t think of his agenda when they think of him. In fact, a recent study shows that his most popular issue positions had minimal significance on voter's perceptions of him.
While explanations to the race’s outcome are numerous, it is arguable that both candidates had to balance their issue positions in pursuit of victory. In fact, early on Pete Coors made a political faux pas at an Arapahoe County Republican Men’s Club, where Coors publicly advocated lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 (Colorado Senate 1). These comments opened a plethora of negative "drinking advertisements." Later, Coors tried to correct his stance on this issue by trying to reframe the drinking age issue as a state versus a federal power (Florio, No 1). Unfortunately, using consistency as the normative standards for credibility, his reaction further damaged his credibility.
Ken Salazar was also faced with a similar dilemma when he publicly supported “John Kerry’s $142 billion tax increase” stating that “making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent is irresponsible (Glazer, Salazar Stays 1).” While he was trying to run a centrist campaign, his position on this issue labeled him as a liberal and put him in Kerry’s corner. Salazar immediately tried to draw attention away from the issue by issuing a press release “slamming Coors for breaking a promise to avoid negative ads (Glazer, Salazar Stays 1).” He also made the strategic move to distance himself from Kerry by appearing with him only once throughout the campaign (Couch, Despite 2). Although Salazar did not change his position, he did suffer minimally.
© Davidson College, 2004, Department of Political Science, Davidson
College, Davidson, NC 28035
Send comments to Jacquin Gilchrist (Jagilchrist@davidson.edu)
Created: 12/06/2004. Last updated: 12/06/2004.
Political Science 318 - Strategy
and Ethics in Election Campaigns
