Congressional hopefuls avoid media, events at 11th hour of elections

By Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2010; 10:46 PM

With less than two weeks before the midterm elections, candidates all across the nation are doing . . . not much of anything?

Congressional hopefuls from California to Delaware are shunning the traditional trappings of campaigns, avoiding public events, debates and other venues where they can't control the action. Many are keeping their schedules secret and limiting their in-person appearances and have canceled interviews on national television in favor of smaller, friendlier venues.

The most high-profile instances have involved tea party favorites running for the Senate - including Rand Paul in Kentucky, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharron Angle in Nevada - whose political inexperience and unorthodox positions have sometimes led them to say impolitic things. Over the weekend, private security hired by Miller went so far as to handcuff a reporter who was seeking to ask the Republican about his time as a government lawyer.

Several Republican candidates have also declined invitations or pulled out of debates. In Florida, debates for governor and Senate races were canceled this month after organizers could not get commitments from the Republican contenders or Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the Senate as an independent.

In a televised debate in Texas on Tuesday, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White ended up debating his Libertarian and Green Party rivals after Gov. Rick Perry (R) skipped the event.

Democrats have also been evasive at times. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (Pa.) drew widespread attention when he said he would not hold town hall meetings in August for fear of attracting "nuts" wielding cameras. Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.) has been unwilling to debate his opponent. And reporters in Nevada say Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid has been as reticent as Angle when it comes to answering questions.

The calculation for the candidates is simple: They feel pretty good about their chances and don't want to risk a gaffe that will sabotage their campaigns. But their actions are also a test of what voters expect from their candidates and whether they will support someone for public office who shuns the public.

What's unclear is whether this is how campaigns are going to be from now on or whether it's just an anomaly in a whirlwind year.

A little of both, said Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.

"I think it is a product of a time in which you have a number of candidates who are so vehemently and rabidly anti-establishment," he said. "These are angry people, and angry people tend to make mistakes."

At the same time, he added, "retail politicking is quaint. In House seats and certainly for Senate seats, the opportunity to actually press the flesh is not going to really have that much of a return. Most campaigning these days is done electronically through the mail. It's a further sign of alienation of people from their government, and it can't be a good thing."

(INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Campaign 2010 races)

Campaigning has evolved from the days when a candidate had to directly interact with voters to win over their support. While most still show up at diners and grasp hands at community events, it is seen more as evidence of the candidates' hard work and connection to the people rather than a way to win over individual votes.

Today, receptive voters can be reached using detailed databases and kept in the loop with targeted e-mails and personalized messages via Facebook. Voters who want to hear from candidates can look at YouTube channels and sign up for Twitter feeds.

At the same time, technology has added to the perils of public events.

"Almost everybody has a video camera inside their telephone, so pictures and video are rolling at a moment's notice and can be on YouTube in an hour," said former Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.). "That has brought advice from campaign handlers and consultants to tighten up how and what you're saying, and who you're saying it to."

Even then, candidates can get in trouble. Angle has come under criticism this week after video from a closed event revealed her telling a room of Hispanic students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me."

In a way, candidates have never had so much exposure. Many are turning to alternate media outlets, such as liberal blogs, conservative talk radio or favorable cable news networks. They are using social media and avoiding traditional media outlets.

In California, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman became "the first statewide candidate in memory" to decline a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board, according to the newspaper.

The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., complained that it doesn't get access to Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, who has had few public events and lists none coming up on her online schedule.

Groups that organize debates said they've never been more frustrated. The candidates who agree to the events are making ever more demands, asking to see questions ahead of time and avoiding forums they view as biased.

For example, the Kansas City Star issued an "open letter" in September chastising Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who is running for governor, and Rep. Skelton, seeking reelection in Missouri, for not finding time for public debates. Skelton so far has not agreed to debate his opponent, Vicki Hartzler (R), while Brownback and his Democratic opponent, Tom Holland, have agreed to two face-offs.

Members of the League of Women Voters, which organizes debates across the country, said it's a struggle to get much of any feedback from candidates.

Jean Rabinow, member of the steering committee of the league in Bridgeport, Conn., said that dramatically fewer candidates are filling out voter questionnaires and that many more decline invitations to debate. She gets it, though.

"It's horrible for the voters," Rabinow said, "but I am sad to say that for a lot of these candidates, failure to engage the voters is not a losing strategy."

Research editor Alice Crites and staff writers Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.