Seek Versus Expect

The Casper Star-Tribune had this piece up today, and it's worth a read. It's mainly about Nick Carter's campaign for the Senate seat currently held by John Barasso. But I read something more than just some anecdotes about former prom dates and putting up yard signs - it's about a fundamental difference between the candidates running to represent our state in Washington for the next two, four, or six years.

It's the difference between seeking and expecting votes.

Which candidates are going door to door across the state? Which candidates are showing up at forums in our towns (and then sticking around for a bit to talk face to face with those in attendance)?

Those would be the same candidates that actually have to work for votes: Gary Trauner, Nick Carter, and Chris Rothfuss, all of whom face an automatic uphill battle because they don't have an "R" after their names. After last week's candidate forum at Sheridan College, I overheard a woman I know to be a staunch Republican tell Rothfuss that he had some good ideas, but it was too bad he was "in the wrong party."

This blind allegiance to party (which I've heard each of the three address in some fashion at least once, if not at some length, as a problem that stretches back to the founding of this nation) is an issue, especially when coupled with the staggering advantage that our Republican senatorial incumbents have in fundraising (both Enzi and Barrasso have over 100 times as much cash on hand as their opponents). Limited funds make it harder for these challengers to get their names and messages out - in recent polling, 37% of Wyoming voters said they didn't recognize Carter's name and 55% Rothfuss'. Which is nothing short of a big damn shame.

Should that really be such an issue? Despite the fact that Wyoming has twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats, we've had a Democratic governor for 24 of the last 32 years; current governor Dave Freudenthal won reelection in 2006 with 70% of the vote. Trauner lost to Barbara Cubin by a fraction of a percent in 2006 and is currently polling dead even with Cynthia Lummis.

Clearly this isn't a permanent situation, nor is it utterly hopeless. But if our incumbents don't have to do much of anything to win, why should they do more? Why should they have to reach out to their constituents when it makes no change in the outcome? Why should they seek when they can expect they'll get the votes? They're going to win, right?

It just the people that lose.

-Regis