Define Candidates Before the Opposition Does – Don’t Let the Opposition Write Your Candidate’s Story

 THE GRASSROOTS GENERAL-ELECTION ACTION SERIES: Step 3…

Each of the Grassroots General Election Action Series installments addresses one Essential Grassroots Responsibility:

Step 1 explained how one palm card can begin a continuing relationship with a voter.

Step 2 explained how thousands of those relationships can become an organized grassroots campaign operation.

Step 3 gives the grassroots the responsibility to make certain the voter knows the candidates before the opposition defines them.

Reaching the voter and building the organization are not enough if the voter still does not understand the candidates asking to lead them.

A candidate who is not clearly defined by supporters will eventually be defined by opponents.

The definition may come through a misleading comparison, a carefully selected quotation, a repeated accusation, a nickname, a television advertisement, or a social-media message designed to create an emotional reaction before the voter ever examines the facts.

Once that image takes hold, the campaign is forced to spend valuable time denying someone else’s version of the candidate.

That is why defining a candidate cannot begin during the final weeks of a General Election.

It must begin immediately.

The grassroots must help voters answer three fundamental questions:

QUESTION I — WHAT HAS THE CANDIDATE DONE?

Examine the candidate’s record, experience, accomplishments, failures, decisions, votes, and previous responsibilities.

Do not rely entirely upon campaign biographies or opposition advertisements. Look at what the candidate has actually done when given authority, responsibility, or the opportunity to lead.

And don’t rely on endorsements not grounded on the candidate’s actual record!

A record does not tell us that a candidate has never made a mistake.

It tells us how that candidate has handled responsibility, pressure, disagreement, success, and failure.

QUESTION II — WHAT DOES THE CANDIDATE BELIEVE?

A list of campaign promises does not always reveal a candidate’s governing philosophy.

Voters should understand the principles that guide the candidate’s decisions:

• What is the proper role of government?
• How should taxpayer money be used?
• Which responsibilities belong to individuals, families, communities, States, or the federal government?
• When political pressure becomes intense, which principles remain negotiable — and which do not?

The question is not simply what a candidate promises during a campaign.

The question is what that candidate believes strongly enough to defend after the campaign is over.

QUESTION III — WHAT WILL THE CANDIDATE DO?

The voter should know what the candidate specifically intends to accomplish, which priorities will come first, and whether those promises are realistic within the authority of the office being sought.

A candidate should not be evaluated by slogans alone, nor by generalized endorsements alone.

The grassroots must help voters compare:

Record. Principles. Judgment. Priorities. Results.

This is not about teaching voters what to think.

It is about giving them enough truthful and defensible information to think for themselves.

Opponents will attempt to define candidates through association.

Consultants will attempt to define them through carefully tested language.

The media may define them through whichever controversy attracts the most attention, or the financial resources financing them.

But the voter deserves something better.

The voter deserves to know:

• Who is this candidate?
• What has this candidate already demonstrated?
• What will this candidate do with the power of the office?

And most importantly:

• Has this candidate earned the voter’s trust?

That trust must be earned by the candidate’s own record — not borrowed from a party label or destroyed through association with someone else.

Yet opponents know that if they can define a candidate through a familiar name, personality, controversy, or previous campaign before voters conduct their own examination, the comparison may become the voter’s first — and perhaps only — impression.

But before the candidate can be evaluated honestly, that manufactured definition must be challenged.

Here are FIVE ways to help you do that…

FIRST, STOP THE FALSE COMPARISON BEFORE IT SPREADS!

A Comparison Is Not A Record…

Arizona provides a current and unmistakable example.

Governor Katie Hobbs’ coordinated reelection campaign, Copper State Victory, has explicitly described Republican nominee Andy Biggs as a “carbon copy” of Kari Lake, Hobbs’ unsuccessful 2022 opponent. (https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-05-06/arizona-governor-candidate-andy-biggs-says-he-and-kari-lake-are-very-different-people)

And this is not merely an observation arising from political commentators after the Primary…

It is a deliberate campaign strategy that began before Biggs secured the Republican nomination, and is now being carried directly into the General Election. ((https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-05-06/arizona-governor-candidate-andy-biggs-says-he-and-kari-lake-are-very-different-people

The intended message is clear:

Kari Lake lost to Katie Hobbs in 2022.

Then Hobbs states that Andy Biggs shares certain political positions, supporters, and election concerns with Kari Lake. (https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-05-06/arizona-governor-candidate-andy-biggs-says-he-and-kari-lake-are-very-different-people )

Therefore, voters should view Andy Biggs as another Kari Lake—and expect the same conduct, the same campaign, and the same result.

Next, the Hobbs campaign has attempted to reinforce that comparison through several issues, including abortion policy, the events surrounding January 6, the certification of the 2020 presidential election, and whether Biggs will plainly acknowledge the result of Arizona’s 2022 gubernatorial election.

Those issues are legitimate subjects for public examination.

But using them to declare that one candidate is a “carbon copy” of another is not a complete candidate evaluation.

It is a political frame designed to reach the voter before a fuller examination can take place.

Two candidates may belong to the same political party, support some of the same policies, receive endorsements from some of the same people, or appeal to some of the same voters.

That does not make them the same candidate.

Andy Biggs and Kari Lake have different personal histories, professional backgrounds, records in public office, leadership experience, communication styles, governing experience, campaign organizations, strengths, and weaknesses:

Biggs served in the Arizona Legislature, became President of the Arizona Senate, and later served in Congress.

Lake entered electoral politics after a long career in television journalism.

Those differences do not automatically prove that Biggs is better — or worse.

They prove that he must be evaluated on his own record.

• A voter may strongly support one and oppose the other.
• A voter may dislike both.
• A voter may conclude that they share important political positions.

But no voter should be encouraged to surrender individual judgment, merely because a campaign believes one familiar name can be used to define another.

 Association is not evidence.

Repetition is not proof.

And a political comparison is not a candidate’s record.

SECOND, DO NOT ANSWER AN EMOTIONAL ATTACK WITH AN EMOTIONAL DEFENSE

The wrong grassroots response would be to become angry, insult Kari Lake, attack voters who supported her, or simply declare:

 “Andy Biggs is nothing like Kari Lake!”

That may express frustration, but it does not answer the voter’s questions.

It also allows the opposition to control the conversation.

The better response is:

 Andy Biggs should be evaluated as Andy Biggs. Examine his record, his decisions, his qualifications, his principles, his judgment, and his plans for Arizona. Then compare those facts with Katie Hobbs’ record and plans.

That response does not demand that the voter agree.

It asks the voter to conduct an honest comparison.

The grassroots does not need to erase Kari Lake from Arizona’s political history. Nor should it pretend that the Republican Party has nothing to learn from previous campaigns.

• Every campaign should be studied.
• Every loss should be examined.
• Every mistake should become a lesson.

But learning from a previous election, is different from declaring that every future candidate will repeat it.

THIRD, MAKE THE OPPOSITION PROVE THE COMPARISON

Whenever an opponent attempts to define a candidate through someone else, ask specific questions:

• What actions make the two candidates alike?
• Which votes are the same?
• Which leadership decisions are comparable?
• Which policies are identical?
• Which statements are being quoted, and in what context were they made?
• Which differences are being intentionally omitted?

A comparison that cannot survive specific questions should not be allowed to control the election.

This does not mean every comparison is automatically dishonest.

Sometimes a candidate’s associations, endorsements, public statements, or political alliances are relevant – Voters have every right to consider them.

But those factors should be part of the examination — not a substitute for it.

The Standard Should Remain:

• Show the record.
• Identify the evidence.
• Explain the relevance.
• Let the voter decide.

FOURTH, DEFINE THE CANDIDATE BEFORE THE LABEL HARDENS

The longer a false or incomplete definition circulates unanswered, the more difficult it becomes to correct.

That is why candidate definition cannot be left entirely to paid advertising during the final weeks of the campaign.

Precinct Committeemen, volunteers, neighborhood leaders, local writers, podcasters, candidates, and grassroots organizations should begin developing factual answers immediately.

They should know:

• The candidate’s background and qualifications.
• The offices previously held.
• The responsibilities carried in those offices.
• The candidate’s most important votes and decisions.
• The promises that were kept — or broken.
• The controversies that will predictably be raised.
• The honest answer to each reasonable criticism.
• The differences between the candidate and the person to whom the candidate is being compared.

This information should not be hidden inside a fifty-page research document that most voters will never read.

It must be converted into clear, accurate, defensible, and meaningful communications:

• A short candidate biography.
• A factual record of accomplishments and failures.
• A side-by-side comparison of the candidates.
• Five doorstep talking points.
• Brief answers to the attacks voters are most likely to hear.
• Links to original votes, records, speeches, and public documents.
• A simple explanation of what the election will mean for Arizona families.

The goal is not to manufacture an image…

The goal is to prevent a manufactured image from replacing the truth.

FIFTH, EVERY CANDIDATE MUST STAND ON AN INDIVIDUAL RECORD

The same standard must apply to both parties.

Katie Hobbs should not be evaluated merely as another Democrat.

Andy Biggs should not be evaluated merely as another Republican.

Nor should either candidate be judged solely by national party leaders, political allies, campaign labels, or personalities from a previous election.

Each should be required to answer for an individual record.

• What did the candidate do with the authority already entrusted to that person?
• Which decisions improved the lives of citizens?
• Which decisions failed?
• How did the candidate respond to pressure, opposition, crisis, and responsibility?
• What does the candidate believe government should do?
• What will the candidate attempt to do next?

Those are harder questions than repeating a familiar political comparison.

They are also the questions responsible voters should be asking.

The opposition may attempt to write the candidate’s story in one sentence.

The grassroots must be prepared to answer with facts.

Before voters make their decision, they deserve clear answers to at least Three Fundamental Questions:

• What has the candidate already done?
• What does the candidate believe?
• What will the candidate do with the authority of the office?

Those questions cannot be answered by a nickname, a slogan, a party label, or a comparison with someone who is not on the ballot.

They require a record.

They require evidence.

They require an honest comparison of the candidates, before asking for the voter’s trust.

Voter Reflection:

Step 1 began the relationship with the voter.

Step 2 organized the grassroots necessary to reach that voter.

Step 3 gives the grassroots the responsibility to make certain the voter knows the candidates, with FIVE Ways to Help Define the Candidates Before the Opposition Does.

The opposition may write the first sentence.

But the grassroots must make certain it does not become the Final Story.

——————————————————————————

Coming Next in The Grassroots General-Election Action Series…

Step 4 – EVALUATE THE CANDIDATES

How voters and volunteers can look beyond labels, personalities, and recycled political comparisons — and instead examine each candidate’s record, experience, priorities, decisions, and plans.

by Linda Brickman

©2026 Linda Brickman All Rights Reserved.

 

The post Define Candidates Before the Opposition Does – Don’t Let the Opposition Write Your Candidate’s Story appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.