One of the more interesting stories to emerge from last month’s primary in Salem was not who won or lost, but how candidates played the game. Look no further than the race for Salem City Council Ward 4, where incumbent Deanna Gwyn lost her bid for re-election to challenger Dave Inbody.
In an election cycle defined by competing political organizations, direct mail campaigns, digital advertising, and increasingly sharp rhetoric, Gwyn’s campaign took a noticeably different approach. Supporters were instructed to maintain a positive message and to focus on Gwyn’s record of service, accomplishments in office, and priorities for the future. Campaign leaders described this as a deliberate decision to avoid making the race about the shortcomings of her opponent and instead make it a referendum on Gwyn’s own qualifications and vision.
Whether or not voters agreed with Gwyn’s positions or supported her candidacy, the approach stands out because it underscores an increasingly important dynamic in local politics: the way candidates conduct their campaign often signals how they intend to govern if elected.
The Growing Role of Independent Campaigns
Salem’s city elections are officially nonpartisan, yet many observers would likely struggle to identify them as such after seeing their mailboxes, social media feeds, and campaign communications throughout this year’s cycle.
Organizations like Progressive Salem and Marion+Polk First invested heavily in Salem races, supporting candidates they believed would advance their vision for the city. There is nothing inherently unusual about that, as political organizations have long played a role in helping candidates communicate with voters.
But this year, attack ads flooded mailboxes and social media feeds.
They tightroped the line between truth and deceit. One example was the council race in Ward 4, where many voters received a text message when ballots arrived asserting that Gwyn was delinquent on her property taxes and thereby unable to prioritize fiscal discipline for the city budget. It was patently false.
The challenge is that these organizations are not the candidates themselves. Candidates answer questions at forums. They knock on doors. They participate in debates. They must eventually govern with the people they campaigned against.
Independent organizations operate under different incentives. They are free to advocate, persuade, and draw contrasts without bearing the same level of public accountability that elected officials face once the race is over.
As a result, many of the messages voters see and hear during campaign season are not coming directly from those seeking office. They are coming from organizations seeking to promote their favored candidate by castigating their opponent.
The result can be an environment where some of the loudest messages are delivered by voices unaccountable to the voters.
Why Voters May Be Tuning Out
One of the most notable features of the 2026 primary was the level of drop-off between high-profile races and lower-profile contests. Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as “under-voting,” when voters participate in some races on the ballot but leave others blank.
There are many reasons why this occurs. Some voters simply do not feel informed enough to decide, while others become disengaged by campaigns that focus more on criticism than the candidates’ visions for the future.
For voters who are not deeply engaged in local politics, this can leave them feeling more confused, and some decide to disengage altogether.
A Different Model
Gwyn elected to take the high road and rejected the path of negativity.
It may have cost her the race. But elections are about more than outcomes. They also shape expectations about how public service should be pursued and how political disagreements should be handled.
Looking Ahead
The larger question is whether local politics is becoming increasingly dependent on organizations and messages that exist outside the direct control of candidates themselves. Healthy political organizations play an important role in civic life, but voters are also hungry to hear directly from the people asking for their votes.
The lesson is not that negative campaigns always win, but that voters deserve to hear more directly from the candidates themselves and less from intermediaries speaking on their behalf. That’s bigger than any single race, candidate, or election cycle.
As Salem continues to grow and evolve, maintaining trust in local institutions will require that voters feel connected to the people seeking office, and confidence that they are making decisions based on information that is direct, transparent, and accountable.
That is a conversation worth having, regardless of which candidate’s name appears on the ballot.