Winning, and why we really won.

It is all over the place. People are asking why and how Republicans won in Tennessee so big. Was it McCain? The "Black factor"? Obamas liberalism? Our candidates? Democrat candidates? The conservative message? Phil Bredesens inactivity? The money? Gray Sasser?

Having campaigned door to door all over the state to help most of the candidates that won I think I have a pretty good idea of what happened, and why, based on responses at those doors.

Lets go through the factors one by one.

McCain? Not much to no issue. Most people I talked to didn't think much of him but thought he was better then the alternative. Many people said they were more excited about Palin.

The "Black factor"? AHHH! the race card. Democrats favorite tool. It makes me laugh as Democrats keep dropping it over and over calling Tennessee Republicans "A bunch of backwards dumb, racist" Lets see, Ford jr. got more republican crossovers when he repackaged himself as a conservative (and almost won) against moderate Bob Corker. Were the same people racist and dumb then?

How bout when we had two Democrat US senators and the house and senate was all Democrat? Or when they elected Phil Bredesen? Were these same people dumb then?

If anything it was weak Democrat turnout/ Democrat crossovers against their own candidate (some probably due to race) rather then an extra strong "Racist Republican" turnout. People are sick of the race card. They don't see it anymore. The more they use it the less it works and Democrats have used it ad nauseum, to the point people are starting to get mad instead of intimidated whenever it is dropped. They want real issues and ideas not excuses. Some black people are even getting sick of hearing the excuse so keep it up!

Another factor that is not mentioned much is gerrymandering and Democrat concentration. Democrats have drawn the lines so in their favor and their numbers are so concentrated in a few strongholds that when their base turns out it is only in a few places and doesn't effect the rural areas.

Obamas liberalism? Yes, in some part, but I got a lot of feedback on the religious issue as well. More then I would have thought. The Muslim factor as well as many people perception that he was the Antichrist was mentioned repeatedly. The blind worship and screaming adoration reminded many of early Hitler films. I also heard many people say how they did not think he was qualified to run based on his questionable place of birth.

Our candidates? They were replacing older stale candidates and the number of open seats played in our favor. We had some good candidates. Candidates who did what they needed to do. They got out and worked. If you look at Republicans who won most were younger, energetic and conservative. Our candidates weren't afraid to go after Dems on the issues. That credit goes to our state party and Robin Smith for good candidate recruitment and training.

Democrat candidates? I must say most weren't that good. Most had some skeletons as far as terrible credit histories with bankruptcy, fraud, criminal background, disastrous personal lives that were already well known around town without Republican putting out anything on them. If they had been in office, they had a history of raising unpopular taxes and if they talked conservative most people just did not believe them. They were vague on what they wanted to do or how specifically they were going to do it. I guess part of that can be laid at the foot of Gray Sasser and the Democrat party for terrible candidate recruitment and lack of message. To their credit I thought the Democrats had better media presentation. It was more creative and slicker in many ways. We used similar attacks but with weaker results. They won the media award.

The conservative message? What can I say, it played and played strong. We had specific goals and challenges that Democrats have failed to step up on. The message was stronger then the messenger in many cases.

Phil Bredesens inactivity? As the titular head of the Democrats he was a mixed bag. He dogged his own presidential candidate for being out of touch with mainstream America. It was as true, conservative Tennessee knew it, but Phil did not replace himself as a rally point for Democrats to get behind as he could have. He was lazy when it came time to really work for candidates, he gave little to no money. He did a few personal appearances and quickly went back to the bunker to cry about not being picked as VP only reappearing late in races to point out how he and the Democrats had spent us into a half a billion dollar deficit in Tennessee. Thanks for the help Phil!

Conversely Bob Corker, Bill Frist, Lamar! and even Mike Huckabee worked for and gave money to our local candidates. Although not super popular after the bailout they still came around and helped. Our state leadership also came around and did rallies/fundraisers for our people. The conservatives came in to work doors, at the polls and guide the candidates, we also had good campaign managers who knew what they were doing for a change. In the past we had people who just got out of school and had little to no experience in campaigns except possibly typing on a computer about politics, this time they were a little older, wiser and willing to work.

The money factor? It mattered to a point. Our people invested where we needed to, when we needed to. It was the first time spending was close. The final numbers have yet to come in but we may have actually outspent Democrats for once.

Issues, a good ticket, money and work all go hand in hand. They are like links on a chain. Issues are important. You can't beat a message with no message. We had a good ticket with a unified message, Money is important. You can not win hearts if they don't know your message. Work is important, You can not win on your own or if you wont work to solidify and help sell your message.

This time around we had all the links holding strong.