In your column, The Third Time’s a Charm, you point out that in 2010 Jacob Turk came the closest to defeating Cleaver. You mention “Cleaver beat Turk with only 53% of the vote” and that in 2012 he lost to Cleaver who received 60% of the vote.
I read your column regularly and while I don’t always agree, I find your style to be fairly rational and logical – the reason I keep reading. Yet, in this particular column, you ignore several facts:
1) Missouri’s 5th District was redesigned to achieve a population that has 60% Democrat majority.
2) The new district encompasses several rural counties
3) The population density of the Kansas City part of the 5th District still outnumbers the rest of the counties.
In reading your article it appears as though you’re making the case that Jacob Turk has lost the backing of the people of the 5th District. If that’s the case let me point out to you that challenge for Turk is to overcome a built in disadvantage plus the geographical disadvantage place on all geographically expansive districts.
Cleaver had his base and geography relatively untouched.
Turk (or any Republican candidate for that matter) has to introduce himself to the new voting community. He has to understand the needs of the people and gain their confidence, and finally he has to get them all to turn out and vote for him.
It was a significant defeat and I suspect there is a large amount of strategic and tactical second guessing going on about what could have been done differently. No campaign is perfect.
I believe the implication in your article lacks the usual factual background it deserves.
Lee's Summit, Missouri
To the editor:
It appears Turk is addicted to the attention [The Third Time’s a Charm] as no one could believe he could beat the Dem.
Let's hope he will understand he's been there done that and steps aside for someone new that lives within the district.
Perhaps his wife will have tired of the race and will move to something more productive within the party?
Kansas City, Missouri