You have absolutely no business running for office
Initial thoughts on unserious candidates who find a way to make it onto the ballot
I took a call last week from a guy claiming to be running for public office. Over the course of our conversation, it was abundantly clear to me he wasn’t a particularly serious candidate.
He had unsuccessfully run for public office before, due in-part to the party infrastructure denying him ballot access because of the lack of valid petition signatures. This time, he doesn’t actually live in the district he seeks to represent. And while it doesn’t matter in a Congressional campaign, it’s one factor voters consider when deciding to support or oppose a candidate.
That got me to thinking: What are some other attributes or non-qualifications that keep prospective candidates from achieving “serious” status, in my view.
No offense to my friend Vermin Supreme here, but I needed a good photo for this.
Unserious candidates for office often exhibit certain traits or behaviors that indicate they are not genuinely committed to serving the public or fulfilling the responsibilities of the position. These can include:
Running as a joke or for publicity: Unserious candidates might enter a race to draw attention to themselves or a particular issue, without a genuine intent to hold office. Their campaigns are often designed to entertain or provoke rather than to present viable policy solutions. This approach can dilute the seriousness of the election and distract from legitimate candidates and issues. Vermin Supreme (pictured above) often runs for president as a form of political satire.
Running as a perennial candidate: Some individuals repeatedly run for office with no real intent to win or serve, using each campaign as a platform for personal amusement or to make a statement. This pattern of behavior can be a clear indicator of a lack of serious intent, and over time, can contribute to voter cynicism and disengagement from the political process. Those who do run perennially with an intent to win usually have other attributes listed here that prevent voters from taking them seriously.
Lack of a coherent platform: Such candidates often have platforms that lack detail, are unrealistic, or contain policies that are impossible to implement. These platforms may be designed to appeal to niche audiences or to satirize the political process, rather than to address actual societal needs or offer practical solutions.
Inconsistent or insincere messaging: Candidates whose communication can be characterized by flip-flopping on issues, making outrageous or offensive remarks, or engaging in behavior that seems designed more to shock or entertain than to convey a sincere set of beliefs or policies may also be considered unserious. This behavior can erode trust in the political process and make it harder for voters to take any part of the election seriously.
Failure to engage with the electoral process: Unserious candidates may not invest in a genuine campaign, missing key deadlines, failing to attend important events like debates, or not actively seeking votes. This lack of engagement can signal a disinterest in the actual responsibilities and duties of the office, showing that their candidacy is more about the spectacle than substantive political change.
On the right, candidates who claim to be running a “grassroots” campaign (e.g. they refuse to raise money) are nearly always unserious.Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the role: Unserious candidates may exhibit ignorance about the basic functions and powers of the office they seek, showing little regard for the complexities of governance. This lack of understanding undermines the credibility of their candidacy and can make a mockery of the electoral process.
Ignoring or mocking the electorate: Unserious candidates might treat the campaign as a joke, belittling voters, democratic institutions, or the election itself. This behavior can alienate the electorate and diminish public confidence in the democratic process, making it seem as though the electoral system is not to be taken seriously.
Publicly espousing conspiracy theories: Candidates who espouse wild conspiracy theories are usually not serious. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but building a campaign around conspiracies does not endear candidates to mainstream voters, thus dramatically reducing electability.
Such candidates can sometimes distract from the serious issues at stake in an election and undermine the democratic process by treating it as a platform for entertainment or self-promotion rather than a serious civic duty.
In my role as chairman of a local political party and also as someone who interfaces with candidates and prospective candidates at the local, state, and federal level, I try to assess their viability, electability, and seriousness and provide direct, honest feedback.
I sometimes even say, “You have absolutely no business running for office.”