adminI’m encouraged to see conservative candidates stepping up across Texas to challenge incumbent elected officials who have either drifted away from conservative principles or shifted their loyalty from voters to special interest groups. However, how that challenge is communicated is just as important as why it exists. And this is where many first-time or inexperienced candidates make a critical strategic mistake.
Know Your Audience Before You Deliver Your Message
One of the most important principles I teach candidates is this: You must know your audience to prepare your message, and you must prepare your message so your audience will understand it. That principle is not rhetorical. It is strategic.
A candidate must first understand how the audience currently perceives them and how that same audience perceives the incumbent.
Once a candidate understands where they stand in the minds of voters—and where the incumbent stands—it becomes possible to structure a message that meets the audience where they are. When messaging is prepared with this in mind, it is more likely to be processed thoughtfully rather than provoke.
The Common Messaging Mistake New Candidates Make
Too often, I see new candidates launch their campaigns with an opening message like:
“I’m running because Incumbent John Doe is bad.”
While that statement may feel emotionally satisfying or politically “bold,” it can actually work against the candidate – especially in voting districts where the incumbent is popular or perceived as “good” by a large portion of voters.
Why Attacking a Likable Incumbent Triggers Voter Resistance
Here’s why this approach backfires: many voters in your audience may not yet be fully informed about the incumbent’s voting record, policy failures, or compromises. Some may genuinely believe the incumbent is doing a decent job. When a challenger opens with a blunt negative statement about someone the audience does not see as “bad,” the brain reacts defensively. Psychologically, a skeptical filter forms almost immediately.
Think about how you would react if a stranger abruptly told you that someone you personally like is “bad.” Instinctively, your mind would put up a defensive wall, making you far less willing to hear or fairly evaluate any explanation or evidence that followed.
Once that defensive filter is in place, anything said afterward, even well-documented facts, has a much harder time getting through. The evidence may be true, but by then, it will most likely fall on deaf ears. The audience isn’t evaluating the information anymore; they’re subconsciously defending their initial perception. And more than likely, you’ve lost their vote.
Walking Voters to the ‘A-Ha’ Moment
This is why candidates must learn what I call “walking the brain to the a-ha moment.” In simple terms, this means guiding the audience through a logical process that allows them to arrive at the conclusion on their own—before you ever state it outright. Lead with evidence, not conclusions.
Instead of starting with “Incumbent John Doe is bad,” a candidate should start with evidence. Present clear, researched, and verifiable facts about the incumbent’s actions, votes, missed opportunities, broken promises, or policy consequences. Lay out the case methodically. Keep in mind that much of this evidence may be new to many in the audience. At least three solid, evidence-backed points are necessary for the human brain to engage and begin reassessing its existing beliefs.
When done correctly, the audience experiences the realization internally. They connect the dots themselves. That internal realization—the a-ha moment—is powerful because it belongs to them, not to you.
Why Order Matters More Than Facts Alone
Once the a-ha moment has occurred, the dynamic changes completely. When the candidate later states, “This is why Incumbent John Doe has failed our district,” the brain no longer hears it as an attack. Instead, it hears it as a confirmation or a seal on a conclusion the audience has already reached through the evidence provided.
This is effective communication rooted in an understanding of how human perception works. Voters don’t simply absorb information; they process it through prior beliefs and personal experiences. New candidates who fail to understand this will often wonder why “the facts didn’t work.” In reality, the facts were delivered incorrectly.
Why Advertising Firms Fall Short on Candidate Messaging
It’s also important for candidates to understand that preparedness with this level of strategic messaging is rarely found by simply hiring an advertising or marketing agency. While advertising companies may excel at producing commercials, attractive mailers, and visually appealing ads, they are not typically equipped to prepare candidate messaging at a strategic level.
Effective candidate messaging comes from experienced campaign strategists who understand voter psychology, political perception, and how audiences process information. Many conservative candidates struggle not because their ads look bad, but because their message is delivered incorrectly.
I regularly hear from candidates after they’ve lost an election—many of whom spent significant money on advertising and marketing firms—who genuinely don’t understand why their messaging didn’t work. That confusion is the cost of mistaking marketing for strategy. Without proper guidance on messaging and voter perception, even the most expensive advertising can miss the mark completely.
Strategic Messaging Is How Elections Are Won
Winning elections is not just about being right; it’s about communicating in a way that allows voters to see why you’re right. For conservative challengers – especially first-time candidates – mastering this strategy is essential.
Those who understand how the mind processes information will be far more effective in persuading voters – and far more successful in unseating an underperforming incumbent.
Author: Joseph Vargas