The Republican runoff in Oklahoma’s Fifth Congressional District boils down to two unique blends of tactics.
James Lankford’s campaign involves a two-pronged approach: borrow from the tried-and-true witnessing techniques in his successful youth ministry while the big business establishment uses corporate media power to smear the opponent.
Kevin Calvey’s campaign involves a two-pronged approach as well: tap into previously existing grassroots networks via organizations while hiring the incorporated consultants that helped to build the majority in the Oklahoma legislatures.
Calvey spent a significant portion of the early campaign courting rather influential groups, including regional authorities concerning gun rights, veterans, fiscal conservatism, and veterans issues. Beyond the traditionally Republican leaning organizations, Calvey also courted the Oklahoma TEA party to some success. Using the Republican ideology of use the grassroots network in place to sod your campaign, Calvey developed a wide base of support, bringing in hundreds of thousands in campaign donations.
While working the streets for endorsements, Calvey also picked up consultants that led to the rise of Republicans Lance Cargill and Chris Benge into the Oklahoma Speaker, the first Republicans to earn that role in nearly a century. The old school Republican playbook, run by the old school Republican coaches put Calvey into the runoff. Calvey’s communication team placed the focus of their campaign on the bread-and-butter issues for Oklahoma conservatives… anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-spending. Beyond the issues, however, the voice of the campaign clearly lies in Lankford’s camp.
Lankford supporters suggest that these old school tacticians used some under-the-table tactics. Calvey denies this attack at face value. At best, Calvey’s team is innocent. At worst, Calvey hired a bad apple and axed the program upon notification.
Meanwhile, the face of Lankford’s campaign transplants the same communication plan that Falls Creek administrators use to convince teens to accept Jesus to convince voters to accept James. Further, Lankford’s camp extensively communicates with their volunteers through social media. Fertilizing a homegrown grassroots campaign, Lankford’s front porch looks like a classical underfunded campaign doing well.
Behind the scenes, however, it appears as though many more wheels turn. Relationships with the social conservative consultants allows the Lankford campaign to benefit from years of political experience while promoting the face of a newcomer. Residue of Google-bombs, the online equivalent of a robocall, sparsely populate the Internet, conveniently pointing people towards pro-Lankford sites. Most importantly to Lankford’s chances, however, is the gift that usually keeps on giving, the media.
Lankford’s campaign follows the two central commandments of running a successful campaign: make your weaknesses a strength while making your opponent’s strength a weakness. Lankford’s biggest weakness by far is a complete lack of experience. One beautiful spinjob later and voila, Lankford’s brand becomes the political outsider. Calvey’s biggest strength, conversely, is his public service experience, both as a legislator and with the national guard. Lankford’s camp quite keenly approached tearing down their opponent’s strength by using the backdoor, the Oklahoma City newspaper the Oklahoman.
Calvey repeatedly buttressed his brand by taking stands on local issues. As an ardent fiscal conservative, Calvey opposed MAPs 3, the reason being against a tax increase extension. This endorsement is the mosting damning blow against Calvey, at least in the head shed of the Oklahoman.
In their outright endorsement of Lankford, the Oklahoman paraphrases the entire Lankford campaign: James is a nice guy, and Kevin joined “an anti-progress chorus that failed to defeat the [MAPs 3] initiative…. and it was ill-advised for a congressional candidate to take any stand on MAPS 3.” The only substantive issue raised by the entire piece is Calvey’s sustaining a fiscal conservatism principle, standing with 45.7% of Oklahoma City. The rest is spin to cover Lankford’s weakness.
If Lankford’s campaign’s de facto media wing continues to bombard the conversation with sleet on Calvey, then it will be very difficult for the former State Representative to win. Calvey’s best chance is to redirect his campaign’s voice to counter Lankford’s attack with a two-tiered spin. First, Calvey must parry the blow by playing the victim of Lankford’s de facto political hitman, the Oklahoman. By promoting himself as a fiscal conservative, even when it is not popular by the vocal media, Kevin can reassign the focus of the campaign to his strength: experience. Second, Calvey must contrast that his record is 99% solid and that Lankford’s is non-existent.
With the birth of a son, candidate Calvey delegated power to his campaign management and consultants. All quiet from camp Calvey means that either the leadership incompetently waited to fire back, or Team Calvey has a master plan to sharply strike back. Either way, the next several days will provide layers of intrigue.