About this “candidate quality”…

“The quality of the candidate matters,” they keep telling Republicans as they prepare a special hour-long report on the swearing-in *checks notes* Senator John Fetterman.

Yes…Republicans should be upset that Mehmet Oz, Herschel Walker and Kari Lake lost because they were first-time candidates who relied on star power to win elections and were not high-class, brilliant statesmen like John Freaking Fetterman .

Spare me.

Don’t tell me the quality of the candidate matters when John Fetterman squeezes his stocky frame into a Brooks Brothers suit so he can call himself a senator.

The entire “candidate quality matters” meme is intended to be a backhanded attack on Donald Trump and his choices in the Republican primaries that led to the nominations of Walker, Oz, and Lake in their races. The entire narrative is nothing more than party establishment types and the media once again casting doubt on Trump’s ability to lead his party to victory.

But instead of saying it right away, they just stick to the weasel words “candidate quality matters”, all the while staring at the ceiling when someone points out that talkative Katie Hobbs sounds diseased… she informed a teenager and refused to campaign or even debate with your opponent.

Yes, Hobbs is a really valuable candidate, that’s for sure.

No, you should not believe in this tiresome discussion for too long. This is not true and coming from people who didn’t actually want these candidates to win.

However, if we don’t take a good look at these races and why our candidates didn’t do as well as we expected, we won’t really be doing our job. It may be worth examining the trends that emerge with these first-time, high-profile candidates and what flaws they have shown in their campaigns. They were not ideal candidates and there are valid reasons why they lost.

And before you say it, I know… you don’t think Kari Lake actually lost this race. I see. She won’t be sworn in as governor, however, and even if she lost due to Maricopa’s shenanigans, the scam wouldn’t have worked if the race wasn’t so close. So why was it so close?

To properly examine this, let’s add one more name to the list of candidates for the first time: J.D. Vance, senator-elect from Ohio. We could also add Don Buldoc of New Hampshire (NH) to the list of first-time candidates running statewide, but the NH race was never really seen as controlled by the GOP candidate; There were Vance, Walker, Lake and Oz races.

Or rather, these three candidates should they won. Not only have states recently elected statewide Republicans, but also (with the exception of Ohio) Democrats have nominated flawed candidates in opposition to Republicans. These were completely winnable races… with the right candidates.

Ironically, Vance’s victory in Ohio over Republican Tim Ryan is even more impressive considering that Ryan had been in office in the state for years, was running a well-financed and proven political operation, and Vance was a political novice.

So why did he win while Oz, Lake and Walker lost?

Let’s answer this question with a question. Ask yourself, what did Herschel Walker represent in Georgia? What was the overarching message of Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania? What did Kari Lake show as her greatest strength in Arizona?

I have been watching these races with great interest and here are my answers.

With Walker… I can’t tell you. Seriously. Besides being a eminent football player and not a Democrat, I have no idea what Walker told Georgians he would do for them as senator. Outside of caucusing with Republicans, which I think should be enough, but not so much for most voters.

Oz’s overarching message in the campaign was that he was Dr. Oz. And Fetterman couldn’t be trusted because… well… you know… *winks*. Much of the buzz in Pennsylvania in recent weeks has been about Fetterman’s mental abilities rather than the great ideas, principles and values ​​that Oz brought to the Senate on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania. He never really made the case for himself, only against Fetterman.

As for Lake, there is no doubt that he is a gifted communicator and activist. But the most significant lesson from her campaign was that she would fight the media. How does this aid the average Arizonan trying to pay for gas?

Now look at Vance. He was also a political neophyte, but for the past few years he has been talking about the arduous situation of Americans who have suffered as a result of Washington’s economic neglect. He was exposed to the devastation he described so clearly in his book and movie “Hillbilly Elegy.” He was able to empathize with voters and tell them he planned to go to Washington and solve the problems that plagued Ohioans.

The problem was not the quality of the candidate, but his message.

I have no doubt that Walker, Oz, and Lake could communicate on significant issues that mattered to voters in their states, but no one ever bothered to assure them that this should be a priority.

They won their nominations on their star power, and when it came time to put together a coherent message for the general election, they seemed lost. Is it their fault? Probably. But it is also the fault of older parties and party infrastructure.

Fetterman was led by party elders who prioritized his race, and Oz was left alone because his party refused to unite around him. Same in Georgia. The party establishment may have spent money on ads attacking Raphael Warnock, but not on the basic blocking and tackling needed to convey to Georgians what Walker would do for them as senator.

Does the quality of candidates matter? Bright. It’s the same with messaging to candidates, their priorities and support for candidates.

And ultimately, if voters think that all that matters to you is name recognition, star power, a Heisman Trophy, and the ability to debate a cable news host, they may not feel entirely motivated to give you their vote.