Ask a former political staffer/consultant anything

[crazzyass]

Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.

Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae.

Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.

wtf, I'm not racist.

lol I should have specified that our disagreements were more metaphysical.

[WAN]

Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.

Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae.

Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.

I would like to hear your reasoning on why it is not ok to hate black people.  The way I see it, Obbe and Darkhunter have the RIGHT to dislike whoever they want, and for whatever reason they want.  And this is because it is their brain and their thoughts, which they should have full and complete dominion over.  If their brain tells them, "I don't like the way black people look and act", then guess what?  They have the RIGHT to feel that way.

You crazzyass might be an anti-racist, or at least someone who doesn't hate black people, it is all well and good, however I don't think you should be allowed to impose your brand of morality on someone else.

[starvingniglet]

I would like to hear your reasoning on why it is not ok to hate black people.  The way I see it, Obbe and Darkhunter have the RIGHT to dislike whoever they want, and for whatever reason they want.  And this is because it is their brain and their thoughts, which they should have full and complete dominion over.  If their brain tells them, "I don't like the way black people look and act", then guess what?  They have the RIGHT to feel that way.

You crazzyass might be an anti-racist, or at least someone who doesn't hate black people, it is all well and good, however I don't think you should be allowed to impose your brand of morality on someone else.

anti-racists are some of the most retarded mental slaves that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

[LiquidIce]

Nice to see you, crazy.

Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?

What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?

[crazzyass]

Nice to see you, crazy.

Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?

Like with anything, it really depends. There are a few trends, though.

The professional political consultant class that is housed in Washington, DC tends to be pretty far removed from their work, emotionally. At least overtly so. Some are passionate and compartmentalize this in order to be effective, others are psychopathic sharks. They tend to consult mostly on congressional races and they do so for races across the country. Party affiliation seems to have little effect on this, though interestingly enough the GOP operatives I've met always seem more competent than the Democratic ones. This coming from a Democrat.

Other consultants are more geographic based, and these tend to be more genuine/believe in what they are doing. So a guy that has done every race in a given state or city for the past 20 years probably really cares about the area, or at the very least enjoys dominating it specifically. Someone with that level of experience that chooses to not go to DC probably is particularly affectionate for their home. I trust these guys a lot more than DC operatives; on the other hand, they are sometimes less skilled than DC operatives.

If in doubt, hire a DC consultant and a local consultant. The extra oversight doesn't hurt with this, either.

What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?

Every campaign since the dawn of campaigns is really trying to accomplish only one thing: ensure that 50% + 1 of the people voting in the election will be voting for its candidate. Everything comes back to that.

So in Obama's case specifically, and Democrats a bit more broadly, the typical electorate make-up is not super favorable: older, white males voting don't give us a great shot at winning. So they had to change the electoral make-up: young, minority, and unmarried female voters were determined to be the best bet. From here, the campaign created means to convince these voters to not only want to vote for Obama, but to actually vote for Obama.

For younger voters, this mean web 2.0 and mobile apps. People keep shitting on Romney for not being on the same level with these tools and, while he could have done some things better, that wasn't his main problem.

Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.

[burroughs]

Perhaps I'm just more aware of this as an adult, but do you feel like the general political climate has gotten more heated and divisive since the mid 2000's or so? People seem more set in their ways and affiliations, and in general seem to lack the ability to have a civil debate. Has this changed your job at all?

[Suicidal Fish]

Hey everyone! One reason I have been on hiatus for about a year is that I plunged more deeply into the political world as a consultant, lobbyist, staffer, what have you.

Now that I'm burnt out on that shit and ready to make money and have a life again, I'm getting more engaged back on social media and forums n shit. Anyway, I know there are tons of misconceptions about political stuff, so I figured I'd open myself to questions. I might eventually write up some guides too. Like introduction to lobbying/getting shit done, intro for people who want to run for office or staff campaigns, etc etc.

So fire away.

While in the political world,  did you ever meet anyone who seemed like they might be an evil reptilian alien bent on enslaving mankind?

He probably met a few Jews.

[crazzyass]

Perhaps I'm just more aware of this as an adult, but do you feel like the general political climate has gotten more heated and divisive since the mid 2000's or so? People seem more set in their ways and affiliations, and in general seem to lack the ability to have a civil debate. Has this changed your job at all?

Yes and no. On one hand, some academic studies show an uptick in polarization among voters. By other, more anecdotal measures, I think it is overblown.

The mechanics of winning a campaign are fairly static over the decades; what changes are the variables. For instance, persuadability is the measure of how likely someone can be persuaded to vote for your candidate. In recent years, persuadability has definitely dropped, which is driving the partisan polarization.

But from a campaign perspective, higher persuadability means more communications contacts are needed to convert 'em. So more door knocks, more mailers, more TV, etc. Polarization makes races more expensive, then, but not necessarily more difficult. If your candidate has a weak financial base, it may be more difficult to get elected, though

So when you see record price tags for campaigns in recent years, polarization - and Citizens United - are mostly to blame for that.

[Cory]

Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.

And to think the Romney campaign skewed their internals to account for 2004 voter demographics because they thought the 2008 map was a fluke. They seriously believed going into election night that they weren't only going to win, but win big. Something like this:

Red for DEMS, blue for GOP (I know, I know):



Romney.Ryan: 315 Electoral Votes

Obama/Biden: 223 Electoral Voted

They were expecting a 1988 and got a reverse 2004 instead. Must have sucked. They were so confident in their operation they (famously) didn't draft a concession speech in advance. Even the Obama people were surprised in the effectiveness of their turnout operation when the results actually came in.

[crazzyass]

Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.

And to think the Romney campaign skewed their internals to account for 2004 voter demographics because they thought the 2008 map was a fluke. They seriously believed going into election night that they weren't only going to win, but win big. Something like this:

Red for DEMS, blue for GOP (I know, I know):



Romney.Ryan: 315 Electoral Votes

Obama/Biden: 223 Electoral Voted

They were expecting a 1988 and got a reverse 2004 instead. Must have sucked. They were so confident in their operation they (famously) didn't draft a concession speech in advance. Even the Obama people were surprised in the effectiveness of their turnout operation when the results actually came in.

Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.

Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.

[Cory]

Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.

Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.

I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the GOP wins Pennsylvania but not Ohio. The demographics just don't add up considering if the GOP wins Pennsylvania they are probably winning the national vote by several points. I just don't see them taking Pennsylvania unless it's a landslide.

Wisconsin is more doable but still I think it would be a fluke if they won it without winning Ohio first. Consider that Bush Jr. came within a point of winning Wisconsin in 2004, but Pennsylvania was still out of reach.

[crazzyass]

Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.

Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.

I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the GOP wins Pennsylvania but not Ohio. The demographics just don't add up considering if the GOP wins Pennsylvania they are probably winning the national vote by several points. I just don't see them taking Pennsylvania unless it's a landslide.

Wisconsin is more doable but still I think it would be a fluke if they won it without winning Ohio first. Consider that Bush Jr. came within a point of winning Wisconsin in 2004, but Pennsylvania was still out of reach.

In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.

[Cory]

In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.

I guess 2012 could be the exception but I just think that Pennsylvania is fools gold for Republicans for the time being. They always float it as a place where they could "expand the map" but always lose by big margins.

Not to nitpick, but even with the factors you mentioned Ohio was still much closer then Pennsylvania was it not? I just don't see how even with said factors Pennsylvania is a "better bet" for Romney than Ohio/Wisconsin. Don't get get me wrong there was a bit of a panic on the Democratic side about Pennsylvania in October because Romney hadn't been defined there yet, but it turned out to be hot air. IIRC Ohio was the second closest state in the Union next to Florida on election night, so isn't it still more plausible that Romney wins Ohio (still losing the election, mind you) then Pennsylvania in some huge upset?

[LiquidIce]

Nice to see you, crazy.

Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?

Like with anything, it really depends. There are a few trends, though.

The professional political consultant class that is housed in Washington, DC tends to be pretty far removed from their work, emotionally. At least overtly so. Some are passionate and compartmentalize this in order to be effective, others are psychopathic sharks. They tend to consult mostly on congressional races and they do so for races across the country. Party affiliation seems to have little effect on this, though interestingly enough the GOP operatives I've met always seem more competent than the Democratic ones. This coming from a Democrat.

Other consultants are more geographic based, and these tend to be more genuine/believe in what they are doing. So a guy that has done every race in a given state or city for the past 20 years probably really cares about the area, or at the very least enjoys dominating it specifically. Someone with that level of experience that chooses to not go to DC probably is particularly affectionate for their home. I trust these guys a lot more than DC operatives; on the other hand, they are sometimes less skilled than DC operatives.

If in doubt, hire a DC consultant and a local consultant. The extra oversight doesn't hurt with this, either.

What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?

Every campaign since the dawn of campaigns is really trying to accomplish only one thing: ensure that 50% + 1 of the people voting in the election will be voting for its candidate. Everything comes back to that.

So in Obama's case specifically, and Democrats a bit more broadly, the typical electorate make-up is not super favorable: older, white males voting don't give us a great shot at winning. So they had to change the electoral make-up: young, minority, and unmarried female voters were determined to be the best bet. From here, the campaign created means to convince these voters to not only want to vote for Obama, but to actually vote for Obama.

For younger voters, this mean web 2.0 and mobile apps. People keep shitting on Romney for not being on the same level with these tools and, while he could have done some things better, that wasn't his main problem.

Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.

Thanks for the info man. I can't wrap my head around the meat of the process (candidates, districts) but I'm fascinated in the campaign machine itself - allocation of resources, strategy, etc. This sheds a lot of light on that.

[Suicidal Fish]

Why are they called GOP?

Gullible Old Pricks?