Why Idaho went with Butch and Tom

I got duped, by a poll. I honestly thought that both the governor’s and education superintendent’s races would be closer. Not necessarily close, but closer than the 60-40 split we witnessed Tuesday in each of the races.

So what happened? I try, perhaps too hard, to perform a post-mortem on the most interesting races, but these are a little tough to figure out.

Let’s first go with the Allred-Otter race. First of all, it must be horribly frustrating to Democrats to put so much effort and time and money into a race, and not be able to pull in even a third of the votes. I followed Keith Allred’s campaign and for the most part I think it was pretty well-executed. Allred didn’t make any fatal gaffes during his campaign. He was articulate, eloquent, centrist. Those are key ingredients for any Democrat to win a statewide office in Idaho.

So why did his final numbers come in at the low 30’s? I can think of a few reasons, some more tangible than others. The tea party tsunami/wave/earthquake/ (insert your own natural disaster here) simply translated to a lot of votes for the “R” candidate. The second reason is that Keith Allred was very good at keeping his ideology – if he has one – to himself. In my several interviews with Allred I tried to find out where he stood on issues. He was adept at pushing each answer into his well-touted “consensus” paradigm. Idahoans want leadership based on principle and, yes, ideology, to get us to a brighter place. Allred’s “let’s just find a way to get along” platform wasn’t enough for many in Idaho. The third reason. I would call it the “cognitive dissonance-inducing campaign message”. Rolls off the tongue, huh? Allred put himself out there as an Idaho kid, a rancher, a guy like you and me. But he also touted his experience as a Harvard professor. Two personas without a lot of overlap.

While finding consensus and getting along is great, right now folks want bold, clear, decisive leadership.

Now let’s talk about Luna and Olson. In essence, Luna kicked the crap out of him. In retrospect, this post-mortem is easy. Idahoans are largely sick of the whiny we-need-more-money mantra that so predictably spews from the mouths of the IEA and their minions every four years. Like clockwork. The IEA’s playbook is obsolete. The IEA is obsolete. Why is it that everyone -- everyone -- has to tighten their belts in tough times, except for education?

We love our kids. We all want to give them the best education possible. What we also understand as is that during a recession we cancel cable, stop eating out, set the thermostat a little lower in winter and a little higher in the summer, and wait a year or two before we buy the new car. Our kids will not be worse off because of it. In fact they get back to basics, which is healthy and good. Education is no different. So they miss a field trip here and there. So they have to raise their own money for athletics. Maybe they’ll go to school for four days a week instead of five. Challenging to their education? Maybe. Fatal? Hardly.

If I may use a Sharron Angle-ism, it’s time for education to man-up. As long as they allow the IEA to protect Idaho’s worst teachers in a counterproductive tenure system, and as long as they robotically chant the more-money mantra every four years, and as long as they put up candidates who can’t – by his own admission - do tenth grade math, they’ll get what they got on Tuesday.

And that’s why Tom Luna won.