Why Annise Parker Won And Gene Locke Lost

The path to victory for Annise Parker looked easy and if you run a well-oiled machine, that is exactly how it should be. Bottom line, Gene Locke did not win because he lacked the campaign experience that Parker had learned over the last ten years.

Locke had the support of the establishment. Money was no issue and he raked in the donations faster than he could count. Christian Archer, his campaign manager was no stranger to winning campaigns at the local level. Locke was a successful attorney with a charismatic background that included struggle and triumph … a true American Dream-type of inspirational story.

Locke had everything going in his favor but his opponent was prepared and Parker’s experience on the campaign trail proved to be the game changer.

Parker won because she was better organized and executed her strategy effectively.

Take her “Come Clean Gene” campaign, in which she controlled the
election topic du jour. Even though Bill White was a lawyer, it was not
an issue for Houstonians these past six years. Parker was able to make
it an issue and suddenly it became taboo to be a lawyer.

The “Come Clean Gene” campaign was responsible for Locke releasing his
tax returns just before Thanksgiving. The lesson here is that Parker
decided the direction of the election long before Locke could ever take
control of the situation.

This created the environment where Locke had to play catch up and keep
up with Parker. Locke would never be able to dictate the agenda and
this hurt him badly.

At times, Locke appeared so desperate to deliver a knockout punch that
he threw many swings but never landed. He attempted to make Parker
“soft” on crime but Parker was able to address that issue and reminded
voters that she earned the endorsement of multiple police unions.

Locke then tried to make Parker seem like she had failed to tell the
City of Houston the real financial state of the budget, but Parker was
able to make it seem like it was Locke who simply did not understand the
situation.

The Dynamo stadium issue was another flop. He pushed the idea that
Parker was against a new soccer stadium — and many voters ended up
supporting her because of that reason. In reality, Parker noted that
she was not against building a stadium for the Dynamo; she was just against
using taxpayer funds to subsidize the cost. Parker relayed to voters
that the City of Houston had done their part of the deal and they were
just waiting on Harris County and the Dynamo to fulfill their part.

Locke lacked a coherent message that would resonate with Houstonians.
It did not help that he mismanaged many campaign decisions. A few
months after setting up shop, Locke cleaned house and hired a new team
that seemed capable of delivering, at least on paper.

The worst move came when Locke fired Sue Walden shortly after being
diagnosed with breast cancer. Parker took advantage of the faux pas and
hired Walden within a week.

Locke’s communications team failed to deliver time after time. When Roy
Morales asked Locke to participate in a mailer where it was understood
that they had to pay their share of the costs, Morales stated that Locke
“refused” to participate. Even after Kim Devlin, Locke’s communications
director, attempted to correct the misunderstanding and explain what
happened, it was too late. This did not sit well with potential
conservative voters who entertaining the idea of voting for Locke.

Then there was the Stephen Hotze endorsement that backfired on Locke.
When rumors began circulating that Locke was seeking the endorsement of
Hotze the Locke campaign denied it. The Houston Chronicle confirmed the meeting and Hotze himself admitted to it; this made the Locke campaign backtrack and change their position.

Hotze ended up endorsing Locke, who accepted the support
whole-heartedly. Parker jumped on this endorsement and tainted it. Locke failed to understand the damage he had inflicted on
himself by not refusing Hotze’s endorsement. Before he knew it, Locke
had alienated himself from conservative voters and white liberal
progressive voters.

Behind the scenes on the Internet, the story was not that much
different. Locke failed to create an online presence that rivaled
Parker on Twitter and Facebook. Anyone that participated in those
social networks would have quickly realized that it was one-sided.
The
reason it was one-sided was because the Locke campaign lacked a genuine
blogger coalition. In mid-July, the Parker began organizing a blogger
coalition to spread campaign news after the mainstream media failed to
take interest in the election.

This small coalition of bloggers created a lot of buzz and analysis for
potential voters to pass around on Twitter and Facebook. Parker was
slowly building her base that would live on the Internet.

Locke never took advantage of this new communication tool and by the
time the runoff election rolled around, it was bloggers who were
digging up the dirt on the candidates.
It was a blogger that broke
the story that Locke was a lobbyist. It was a blogger that reported on
the Hotze-Locke connection. It was bloggers that reported that Dave
Wilson had donated money to Locke.

The list goes on and on but at the end of the day, there was no blogger
coalition to fight back for Locke. In fact, the Locke campaign made the
mistake of creating fake accounts on Twitter to attempt to inflate
their online clout.

Locke might have had the support of prominent politicians, former
mayors and unions but he was not able to build a base around those pros.

Locke lost because he was not able to connect with the voters that he
was courting. Some claim that Locke was the victim of racism. This is a
ridiculous notion. Locke had 80 percent of the African-American vote.
He was only able to obtain about 35 percent of the Anglo-American vote.
Forty percent of Latinos went to Locke.

Are we to assume that African-Americans did not vote by race? Why is it
that when numbers reflect anything but a split that racism is involved?

The reason why Locke did not garner more of the Anglo vote is
perhaps because he failed to obtain it. He did not do a terrific job at
courting conservatives and liberals and this is the reason why the
Anglo vote did not favor him.

Conservatives also failed to show up on his behalf. Locke’s strategy to
actively court them was not forgiven by progressive liberals that sided
with Parker.

Apply everything else stated and you have created a perfect recipe for
disaster. Locke never had control of his campaign and his advisers ran
his campaign into the ground. Parker was a veteran to campaigns and
understood what it took to win. She had name recognition and developed
early on a strategy to win. She did not make her sexual orientation an
issue and stayed on message.

When compared to the way Locke ran his campaign, it should not be a
surprise that he did not win. He failed to execute even though the
stars were aligned in his favor. He was never able to “Locke the Vote”
and when the polls closed…he was not the chosen one.