Editorial: The Path Forward for Amarillo's Grassroots Movement

By Thomas Warren III, Editor-in-Chief

We are now over three months past the 2021 Amarillo municipal election, which saw the Amarillo Matters team of Ginger Nelson, Freda Powell, Eddy Sauer, and Howard Smith win re-election. At the same time, Amarillo voters elected Cole Stanley to replace Elaine Hays on the City Council.

I have done a lot of thinking about this election and what it meant for the political climate three months ago in Amarillo and what it means going forward. And, to put it mildly, the May 1, 2021 election was almost a total disaster for the local grassroots, with the exception of the election of Stanley, who has shown much promise as a friend of the grassroots. After thinking about this election, I have my beliefs about why the elections went the way they did at the ballot box. And, while I have seen plenty of keyboard warriors on Facebook screaming about election fraud in the May election, I have seen no evidence leading me to believe that is the reason the grassroots candidates lost. Instead, the losses for the grassroots seem to have been caused by a few factors, including a few poor candidates who stole oxygen from better, more electable candidates, a consistent state of apathy among many voters, and, yes, the fact that the election was confusing being on a Saturday in May.

For anyone who is interested, I would be happy to detail these points even more at a later time — especially the point about poor candidates, as we certainly had a few on the ballot. But, today’s article is not about relitigating the May election. Instead, I want to look ahead at where we should be going in future elections and how we avoid the mistakes of this election cycle over the next few years.

First, and foremost, we should be thankful to every person who throws their name on the ballot, as they are offering themselves up as public servants and they should be commended. At the same time, we should not blindly support candidates just because they throw their names on the ballot or add a qualifier to their name. For example, we should not support certain candidates just because they claim to be the most religious or because they claim to be the most Republican. Instead, we must dig into their policies and their records to find out the truth about the candidates before committing to supporting a candidate who could ultimately lead local grassroots voters to yet another slaughter at the ballot box.

In May, I witnessed several voters and people who I normally respect committing to candidates for seemingly no reason other than they had the right qualifiers. At the same time, had these voters done their research, they would have seen that the candidates’ true policies and records did not match up with what was being presented to the public. Still, they stuck around because they had the right qualifiers. This is something our grassroots voters must be vigilant about in the future.

Beyond this, the local grassroots must stop cannibalizing itself every election cycle by attacking other voters and candidates in a way that turns off the people we have to win. Elections are about winning hearts and minds, and thanks to poor messaging and a strategy from the local grassroots that resembles something more of a demolition derby than a well-thought out playbook, the voters we have needed to win and convince to vote for change have been happier staying home or supporting the status quo. This has been in large part due to the fact that a circular firing squad has been more popular than a coordinated effort to defeat incumbents.

Think about the 2015 election, in which voters ousted two incumbents and nearly defeated an incumbent mayor with a candidate who was underfunded without a serious campaign organization. The reason these victories happened was because grassroots voters were committed to defeating incumbents rather than defeating challengers. This was practically the opposite of the 2021 election cycle, where fake social media profiles roamed the internet attacking other candidates in the races alongside their fellow challengers. This must stop.

Another point I want to make is about communicating with voters. Social media is a great tool to be connected, but it’s not so great of a tool for reaching voters. Many of the voters already engaging with a candidate on social media are not going to be swayed by a candidate or their supporters simply posting more content. Candidates have to get out, actually start knocking on some doors, and talking directly with voters instead of waiting on social media to win the election.

A final point I want to make is that our candidates must stop chasing every shiny object that comes up during an election cycle. It is fun for candidates to record television commercials yelling at traffic, but when it actually comes down to convincing a voter to crossover from supporting an incumbent to voting for change, something has got to be put in front of that voter that will actually make them want to vote for change. Our candidates have got to start talking more about the issues actually affecting the lives of voters, rather than issues that fire up a small group of supporters. This means that our candidates have to first be willing to listen, then be willing to take what they have learned and formulate a message that voters will understand and appreciate. And, sorry Facebook candidates, tacky memes are not the way to communicate to these voters.

The 2021 election is long gone, but the 2022 election cycle is coming up, in which we should see several local and regional elections play out. My hope is that grassroots candidates consider the points I just noted above and that they take them to heart. If we want real change, we must become serious about how we get there. And, unfortunately, since 2015, the grassroots in Amarillo has not been that serious about change.

Let’s turn things around in 2022 and get some pro-citizen candidates elected for Amarillo.