Brute Fakery?

Later today I'll hopefully get to some Lieberman events, where I'll be sure to give you a blow by blow of every last drop of Joementum.  I see Lamontblog has a description of Tom Lindenfeld's plan for GOTV.  Lindenfeld is the field specialist air-dropped into Connecticut by the DC consultariat.  He's buddy buddy with the ACT crew, and comes out of New Jersey.  It's quite remarkable just how much of the Democratic field consulting world comes out of New Jersey.  It's like everywhere you turn, there's another person who got their start in the Jersey machine.  My sense is that New Jersey, Chicago, California, and Boston are probably the four dominant field cultures in the Democratic Party, with Boston and Jersey standing out for special notice.

Anyway, here's what the New Haven Register reports about Lindenfeld's plan.

Meanwhile, New Haven Alderwoman Jacqueline James, D-3, said a young, mostly white staff from New Jersey was in charge of canvassing for Lieberman, and that hundreds of people were turned away July 22 after being told the campaign was looking for 16- to 21-year-olds.

The alderwoman estimated 56 young people were hired out of about 500 people who showed up, attracted by the $60 a day fee, or about $800 for the duration.

She said LGS does not know the demographics of the city at all. James suggested that they match inexperienced teens with more savvy workers, but this was rejected.

"They kept saying this is how we do it in New Jersey. I kept telling them, `This is not New Jersey,'" said James, who no longer volunteers for Lieberman.

I love New Jersey.  It's a wonderful, beautiful state with a remarkably grassroots political culture.  But there's no way to say this nicely, New Jersey professional field operatives are basically thugs who have learned that it's easier to make money using Excel and Powerpoint.  When I worked in New Jersey, I never saw it directly, but there were a lot of rumors of walking around money and payoffs to black church leaders on both the Republican and Democratic side.  There was a sense that reverence for the machine was more important than anything else, and this leads to treating voters with a sense of nasty condescension and open dishonesty.  In New Jersey, voters know politicians are lying to them as they lie, and politicians know that voters know they are lying.  It's corrosive to the staff, and corrosive throughout the machine and the state.  

Field campaigns in New Jersey are built on cash and cynicism.  Volunteers do not exist, and if they do, they are mostly considered suckers.  Lots of field people, idealist young folks usually, told me that the central managers had no idea what was going on and were demanding number counts that were just sort of dumb.  The field managers were brutish and charismatic bullies, and new consultants tend to appear constantly for every micro-constituency group.  Does this work in New Jersey?  It's hard to tell.  It's always hard to tell, actually, and that's kind of how these people stay in business.

Now, my sense is that turnout in New Jersey didn't actually rely on these expert field operatives, even though these operatives got paid lots of money.  Turnout actually relied on local machines getting their people out.  It was locally done, and the New Jersey field experts were basically superfluous, or to the extent they were not, knew who and how to pay the right people off.  How does this apply to Connecticut?  Well, asshole field bullies may find that New Jerseyans are willing to put up with their nonsense, but that doesn't fly in Connecticut, where local towns and civility is more the norm.  In Connecticut, there is a culture of volunteerism, and people don't respond to nasty machines.  They like nice and gentle politics, and they like it progressive.  

It's not surprising that Lindenfeld is going after the African-American vote in Connecticut with this Jersey machine sense of arrogance and disdain for local Connecticut residents.  I don't think it's going to work, but we'll see.

Not being inside the Lieberman campaign, I'm on thin air here, but I will speculate as to the nature of their operation. It sounds like what's happening on the ground is that Lindenfeld is  hiring young kids too inexperienced to give pushback because he feels like he doesn't have time to 'correct bad habits from locals'.  While his numbers may or may not look good, they are not going to be real numbers, and he will not have accurate counts of 1s and 2s if he has them at all.  Because of the young staff and intimidating culture, field problems will be swept under the carpet.  To the extent they are not, the answer to everything will be 'more more more'.  More robocalls.  More rumor mongering.  More canvassers.  More vans.  More bad commercials.  More consultants.  More money.  The end result might be that Lieberman's massive GOTV operation could courteously ferry a lot of Lamont voters to the polls.

This kind of organizational disaster will sound familiar to anyone who's been in a stodgy company or organization getting smacked around by a smarter, leaner competitor.  More is not better.  Actually, it's kind of familiar to anyone who's been a Democrat all these years and watched us get our asses kicked by Republicans.

It's nice to be on the other side for once, running circles around our very own Dukakis-Gore-Kerry-type candidate who keeps acting the dunce.  Oh, and while resources will be poured everywhere in terms of numbers of canvassers, vans, phone banks, and robocalls, my guess is that there will be no local machine to do the real GOTV for Lieberman.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's what it feels like.



Display:


Re: Brute Fakery? (none / 0)

You don't offer us any indication of how you think the brute force that Lieberman is displaying will be overcome. Do you mean by poll numbers ???


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 02:37:02 PM EST

Re: Brute Fakery? (none / 0)

The argument is that Lieberman's brute force approach won't actually work.


by Matt Stoller on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 03:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brute Fakery? (none / 0)

what are the comparators? dean? or the republicans who used the same techniques in 2004? i hope you are right but we shall see. also how good is it to telegraph their mistakes to them like this- I see the same thing over a kos. again just observations of someone not there.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With their disdain for blogs... (none / 0)

...I'd be surprised if they noticed his anylsis. Even if they did, how seriously are they to take it? None of the other establishment figures ever has yet and how many elections have they lost by now?


by MNPundit on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 07:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With their disdain for blogs... (none / 0)

true- its just weird to see it here and d kos- mentioning what "my opponent" is doing wrong.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 07:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

too much can be too bad (none / 0)

More robocalls.  More rumor mongering.  More canvassers.  More vans.  More bad commercials.  More consultants.  More money.  The end result might be that Lieberman's massive GOTV operation could courteously ferry a lot of Lamont voters to the polls.

I know a guy who tells a great story of working on a city council race in Madison, WI. The election wasn't what you would expect because one of the candidates was the son of a big name Republican and had the resources that come with such a pedigree.

The way I've heard the story, the GOP heir had a fleet of busses and vans to take voters to the polls and ended up delivering so many people that when compared against the results it became clear that half the people who voted for the other guy got a free ride to the polls.

This tale seems to almost be an urban legend, I've heard different versions of it multiple times (usually told with a progressive in a progressive district taking advantage of a rich, right-winger).

But the key thing to realize is that a GOTV operation is only as good as the lists and Lieberman's late effort at a ground game means they probably don't have the math if they only turn out voters who they know are with them. This is when they will have to start making assumptions (which are usually made from polling, instead of the demographics of the people they have ID'd).

Like everything in this race, I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman HQ is hearing what they want to hear instead of getting an accurate pulse of what is going on in the neighborhoods.

An overwhelming GOTV effort (too many calls and knocks) will actually turn off the least interested voters, meaning Lieberman's last ditch effort to throw money at the problem could depress his vote while helping get Lamont voters to the polls.


by Bob Brigham on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 02:51:32 PM EST

Re: too much can be too bad (none / 0)

Yeah, who has a better grasp of their 1s and 2s, a company from New Jersey that was hired a week ago, or Tom Swann?  Paid voter contact is OK, but using out-of-state kids as your FIRST resort?  Good god.  

One of my favorite things about "outsider" or longshot candidates (and Lamont sure used to be a longshot) is that they can usually just let 'er rip on political decisions in a way that wouldn't be strategic (or maybe even wise) if they had as much to lose.  In Lamont's case, this meant being able to name a super-field organizer as campaign manager, which I can only imagine has helped integrate field with the media campaign, communications, and so forth.

I know this is all just speculation and basic shit-talking at this point, but if e-day isn't a big disappointment it will look like Lamont built one hell of an innovative campaign (and by "innovative," I don't only mean "acknowledging of bloggers").  


by Patton on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 03:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too much can be too bad (none / 0)

As many others have pointed out, it is the conservatives who are innovative in campaigns and the progressives who cling to tired old methods.

Campaigns like Lieberman's -- that do everything possible to ensure they don't lose -- may actually make loss more likely in the current environment.

In a lot of campaigns, there tends to be a rift between field and communications. But the Lamont campaign seems to be innovative in both mediums in a way where they play off eachother in a positive direction. If e-day isn't a disappointment, I hope that this gets more attention.


by Bob Brigham on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 03:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too much can be too bad (none / 0)

Word.  It is no coincidence that the campaign employing local talent is the one that is integrating the field and communications strategies.  Anybody who has ever worked a local, county, or legislative campaign knows that combining the two is not only advantageous, but also a lot more natural than keeping them separate.  And anybody who's worked a lowly GOTV position in a large, national campaign knows that this fact is not seen as being able to scale up.

If you're running a race with a VTW of a few thousand, talking to voters face-to-face is not only the smartest way, but also the easiest.  Somehow it gets lost that, for instance, a statewide election is really 1,000 little precinct elections.  

I think it will be a long time before suburban and urban powerbrokers admit that certain aspects of the way we do business are broken.  But what makes me hopeful (and I realize I am not speaking to the Lamont example here) is that as Democrats take more and more rural district/states seriously, it becomes clear that our old model simply doesn't apply (try finding a "block" captain in a district without sidewalks).  Necessity is the mother of invention,   and all that.

Oh, and damn the Lamont campaign for making me think of the word "synergy" non-ironically.


by Patton on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The New Jersey Way (none / 0)

Thanks to TimesSelect, I dug up this 1993 article in which Ed Rollins explained just how money on the street was used to elect Christie Whitman:

The manager, Edward J. Rollins, said the campaign funneled about $500,000 in such "walking around money" from the state Republican Party. Those efforts to depress the vote in urban, heavily Democratic areas, he said, were important in Mrs. Whitman's narrow upset victory.

Mr. Rollins said the campaign made donations to pro-Florio ministers who agreed not to press the Governor's cause from the pulpit and payments to Democratic Party workers who sat Election Day out.

A spokesman for one black clergy group in New Jersey said today that he knew of no one who had received money from the Whitman campaign.

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast meeting, Mr. Rollins described the payments to ministers as contributions to their "favorite charities."

"We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, 'Do you have a special project?' And they said, "We've already endorsed Florio," Mr. Rollins said. "We said, 'That's fine. Don't get up on the pulpit Sunday and say it's your moral obligation that you go on Tuesday to vote for Jim Florio.' "

Mr. Rollins said the campaign used a more direct approach to persuade some Democratic political workers to stay home on Election Day. "We said to some of their key workers, 'How much have they paid you to do your normal duty?' " he said. "Well, we'll match it. Go home, sit and watch television."


Would a desperate Lieberman resort to such tactics?


by Adam B on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 03:34:37 PM EST

Re: The New Jersey Way (none / 0)

The question for me is if there's anything Lieberman could pay to make Lamont volunteers sit it out. Some might take the money, and laugh at him at 8pm after they finish their field work.


by scvmws on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corzine Knock & Drag (none / 0)

In 2001, Ed Kilgore said that Corzine Senate Campaign's Knock & Drag GOTV effort was phenomenal, and would be studied for years to come. Well, that's what happens when a gazillionaire spends 70 million of his own money to win an election -- every potential supporter receives multiple contacts, and on election day, every last one of them will be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls.

My guess is that all of this New Jersey GOTV "talent" were paid staffers in the Corzine K & D effort.  

Memo to the Lieber-beltway kewl kidz --

a) it's the Corzine 70 million, not the Jersey pedigree; and

b) it doesn't matter if you have $170 million -- nobody buys a rotten fish.


by ck on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:08:07 PM EST

Trumbull, CT here (none / 0)

Just received a robo-call from President Clinton!


by Sprinkles on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:23:34 PM EST

Gore ran a great GOTV effort (none / 0)

which explains why he won the popular vote.


by Alice Marshall on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:30:48 PM EST

Re: Brute Fakery? (3.00 / 1)

while i'd love it if lieberman's gotv was a disaster, one thing i've learned from watching establishment past rub-outs (think "mayor" newsom) is that the money and the pros usually work.

yeah, it's a lot sleazier than what the lamont campaign is doing, but in the end, the money and the out-of-state talent do get results.  why?  it's about low-information voters.  most people don't have a clear grasp of candidate's positions on issues, and they compensate for their ignorance with (ie. they make their decisions based on) what the literature calls 'information shortcuts'.  information shortcuts have various forms - party identification is the primary but most irrelevant one here - and if you understand the field of significant shortcuts at play here, lieberman's campaign appears a lot more clever.  linking joementum to clinton is an attempt to link the senator to the good times (and possibly to develop of correlation between lamont's challenge and the gop's impeachment moves) in poorly informed minds.  going on and on about lamont's wealth is a way of promoting negative identification with the comparatively less wealthy lieberman.  the political machine is 100% based on identifying and mobilising the low information voters.  it works, and it's just a matter of if the low id people are already so pre-occupied with the war that they ignore everything else, or with the ability of the machine to impose itself, or with the competence of the machine organisers, or with the big x-factor, the effectiveness of the lamont volunteer army.

i really really hope that lamont wins, but lieberman might still be able to buy this one, and no matter the result, progressives shouldn't be quick to discount the power of machine politics.

still, from everything i'm reading, i think lamont should take it (though i doubt it'll be anything but a squeaker).


by island empire on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:33:59 PM EST

Take the money and run (none / 0)

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT WORK FOR THE LAMONT CAMPAIGN.

It would be funny if a bunch of people who don't care about Lieberman got hired and canvassed aimlessly to get the money. Maybe they will even do the Lieberman campaign some harm while taking their money.


by Pravin on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:54:41 PM EST

that would be fraud (none / 0)


by Alice Marshall on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 05:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that would be fraud (none / 0)

Doing a crap ass job because you hate your boss isn't fraud, it is what right-winger nutjobs should expect when they pay $60/day.


by Bob Brigham on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 06:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brute Fakery? (none / 0)

I'm supprised Lieberman didn't get his field consultants from Boston instead of Jersey. If for no other reason that the Boston style probably wouldn't grate so badly in CT.


by ces on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 03:20:55 AM EST

Re: Brute Fakery? (none / 0)

Heres the deal.  The kids are not for IDing voters as you can't ID folks in three weeks - you need a week for your canvassers to get sea-legs.  What they are going to do is "confirm hunches" with their IDs -  They think they can cobbble together hard-core 1s from the past, religious types, donors to conservative pols, anyone who has signed a "pro-war" petition and the like.  They need to expand that universe, though, so they need to dip into some new areas to see where they do the best.  My guess is they are trying two or three different demographics, and hoping they see progress  in one realm.  Then,  They are going to do a blind pull, based on their assumed info and what they find out from their two weeks.

Either way though, the baseline of this is that they have just about zero people who they WON'T need to drag to the polls.  Lamont already has a base of folks who won't need a call or a knock.  So for my money, the GOTV fight comes down to Lamont geting more of his lazy voters to the polls than lieberman has hard-core supporters (the afforementioned "just about zero").  Lamont's "already-motivated" voters should match or outnumber Lieberman voters that can be coerced on election day.


by rallydemocrat on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 03:04:06 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.