Don Davis: Regular candidates tough to judge

ST. PAUL -- Ole Savior's big issue was opposing nuclear weapons, but he ran for governor, where nuclear weapons seldom come into play.

Dick Franson promoted his military background, which was decades ago.

John Uldrich and Harold Shudlick were like other long-shot candidates, barely visible to the public and political reporters.

All four -- and others -- lost their Minnesota primary election contests, and did little even to attract votes. They fit into a category political reporters call perennial candidates, frequent candidates and dark-horse candidates.

Savior, in particular, has been vocal about not getting publicity when he runs for office, something he does nearly every two years. He has unsuccessfully sued the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune for ignoring his campaign.

But it is hard for a journalist to cover him as a serious candidate when he bases his governor campaign on opposing nuclear weapons. That fit when he ran for Congress, but campaigns have to be somewhat tailored to the office being sought.

And even while he listed that as his top issue, he seldom mentioned it. Based on what he sent to the Capitol press corps, his big issue would appear to have been the lack of Star Tribune coverage of his campaign.

So was Savior a serious candidate worth covering?

That is a question reporters and editors ask themselves every election cycle about Savior and other candidates of his ilk. It's a tough one to answer.

Reporters use a variety of means to determine if someone is worthy of coverage. In a general election, polls are one measure. If a candidate does well in a poll, it may be an indication his campaign has traction.

Another method is whether it appears a candidate is making an effort. Political reporters seldom, if ever, heard from Uldrich and Shudlick, both of whom were unsuccessful in getting noticed in their U.S. Senate Republican primary challenge to Mark Kennedy. If a candidate does not bother to even send a news release to a political reporter -- a cheap and easy way to get publicity -- is he a serious candidate?

A third way to determine the seriousness of a campaign is if the candidate has a track record. However, that is not always effective. In the Democratic primary for attorney general, for instance, former U.S. Rep. Bill Luther was expected to be a contender. But his 20 percent of the vote was less than "perennial candidate" Dick Franson received in the secretary of state's race.

Franson received nearly 29 percent of the vote against Mark Ritchie, the party-endorsed candidate who actively campaigned. Franson's campaign consisted mostly of buying advertisements in veterans' publications. He would walk around the Capitol pressroom and proudly hand out copies of the publications, telling reporters 200,000 Minnesota veterans would read it, as if that's all he needed to do to win an election.

Candidates could do themselves a favor by conducting serious and visible campaigns. Sending incomprehensible e-mails, won't cut it. Neither will just complaining about lack of coverage.

Candidates need to learn how the media works if they want to get out the word.

They could take a lesson from Rep. Jeff Johnson, a Plymouth lawmaker running for attorney general. A year and a half ago he announced his candidacy and began asking questions about how the news business works. His campaign still has a few rough edges -- like when he scheduled, then postponed, a news conference during a gubernatorial debate -- but knowing the system helps a candidate to be taken seriously.

Don Davis is St. Paul correspondent for Forum Communications. He may be reached at ddavis@forumcomm.net .