According to Paul Herrnson successful candidates in a campaign are those who "craft a message with broad appeal, set the agenda that defines voters' choices, and get thier voters to the polls on election day. So this week i've decided to apply this formula to the candidates Rodriquez and Canseco and see which one of them, tends to do an overall better job in this three separate categories.

       In terms of craft a message with a broad appeal, Ciro Rodriquez didn't really have a very  memorable overall theme throughout his election. Instead he tended to talk about his past accomplishments and what he had done so far as congressman. His main message seemed to be to encourage people to support and vote for him so that he could then continue to work on the issues that he claimed to be working on. I don't think that this was a very effective strategy for Rodriquez because it's not something that can really stick in people's minds, and of course every politician will claim that they have done everything that they set out to do from the very beginning. The American people however seem to be pretty disillusioned in regards to the idea of "honest politicians". And this is something that Canseco was very aware of and integrated into his main idea for his campaign. Canseco's main message was clearly to let the 23rd district know that his mission was to not only win his individual election but also for the republicans as a whole to take control, and kick out Nancy Pelosi because according to him the Democrats and President Obama were to blame for a lot of the unsatisfactory progress that was being done in the country.

       In regards to "setting an agenda that defines voters' choices". I personally feel that Rodriquez tends to do a slightly better job than Canseco in this aspect because since he is the incumbent he is knowledgeable of the issues that were a problem when he was being elected, and how those have played out during his terms, as well as how his constituents feel about his representation. So Rodriquez tended to talk more about individual issues, that he personally knew were important to his district. Canseco on the other hand obviously came in with a lot less knowledge especially since he wasn't very political before this campaign anyways. his agenda to me was very self-centered and seemed to revolve around doing whatever he had to do to get into office. 

     And finally, in terms of getting your voters to the polls on election day, it's hard to say who was more responsible for the turnout. I would say both candidates contributed into making this a closely watched race and therefore a high turnout.