On November 3, Houstonians will elect a new Mayor, City Controller and 14 City Council members. In the race to lead the City, all three major candidates have a decent shot at losing the election. Based on the most recent polls, not one has broken from the pack to connect with voters.

One candidate is blowing their financial advantage by waiting too long to buy media. Going on TV earlier would have given them a psychological lead and branding advantage over the other candidates. The second mayoral candidate sends daily news releases about who is working for their campaign, or “spinning” about their great campaign organization. They spend more time talking to insiders than to voters and remind me of a bad episode of the 1990’s sitcom “Spin City.” The third mayoral candidate is too worried about playing it safe to win the election.

While these candidates play insider politics and blow through their campaign war chests, they lose their chance to seize the lead and connect with voters. I should point out, in the interest of full disclosure, that I know all three of these candidates. I know that all three of the top mayoral candidates are well qualified to be our next Mayor, but I do have to question their campaign tactics.

What do these candidates have in common? They over-think their election strategy by flip flopping on issues and campaign strategies. Case in point, can anyone tell me what any of the top 3 candidates for mayor stand for? Can anyone tell me what issues they differ on? Political campaigns are about winning the hearts and minds of voters. They are about ideas and communicating your stance on issues that are important to voters. They are about leadership. But most importantly, campaigns are about building TRUST with voters.

For inexplicable reasons, some candidates don’t seem to understand these basics. History has shown us that instead of trying to prove to voters that they are the best candidate for the job, they start to worry about losing. And, that’s when it happens…they lose.

Flip Flopping

In 2004, Republicans were able to retain their hold on the White House largely by depicting U.S. Senator John Kerry as a “flip-flopper.” It did not help matters one bit that Senator Kerry uttered such dense statements as, “I voted for it before I voted against it.” The Bush campaign was able to spin Senator Kerry into a candidate who could not be trusted on national security and other issues and President Bush returned to a job he did not deserve.

As a veteran of hundreds of campaigns from school boards to presidential elections since 1976, I view the election process with a very unique set of eyes. I can guarantee that the moment a candidate starts seriously thinking about winning and losing, they have lost the heart, soul and direction of the campaign.

It’s time we move forward and embrace 21st Century American politics.

In the new political landscape, social media has changed almost everything. Candidates now post campaign themes and ideas on Facebook. Voters post comments, pictures and videos on multiple social media platforms. Rumors that can boost or kill a campaign (and sometimes facts) move quicker in today’s world than they did just a few years ago.

The real question about social media and candidates is does the number of Facebook fans translate into voters and money for a campaign? It did for President Obama, but that may not translate into voters or money for everyone. In short, having a Facebook or social media page does not win voters.

Candidates need more than a social media strategy. Candidates must learn how to connect with voters outside their base of comfort and show up to special interest screenings whether they share interests or not. Candidates can’t always buy endorsements, as some have done in the current election cycle; they need to actually talk to voters about the issues that impact their daily lives. They need to engage in grassroots campaigns. They need to have a total integrated campaign plan.

The Politics of Indecision

In 2008, the politics of indecision tanked the presidential hopes of U.S. Senator John McCain. While exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate ranked the economy as the most important issue, McCain famously quipped, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” . The Obama campaign made sure that Americans saw that clip on every social media outlet. McCain would go on to suspend his campaign and fly to Washington with the working theory that he would put country first, and force Obama off the campaign trail. That didn’t happen. What happen was that Senator Obama was able to forge a bipartisan compromise, and alter the dynamics of the race for his advantage. Senator Obama won the election 365 to 173 electoral votes.

As we embrace a new political engagement strategy in American politics, we need to remember that ours is a representative republic, despite the fact that only 3 of every 10 voters shows up to participate. Low voter turnout insures that political insiders become the new smoked-filled backrooms where elections are brokered.

Houston’s candidates in the November 3 election would do well to remember that engaging voters and connecting with them is still priority #1. Elections are still about ideas and values and not just a personality contest. Elections today are about using all the mediums available – direct communications, grassroots campaigning, voter outreach – and about connecting with the heart and mind of that target voter.

Candidates that do not understand this are destined to lose.