Skip to main content

View Diary: CT-Sen: Q-poll's eve (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is this so hard? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    matt le w, vox humana

    I am genuinely curious.

    Fake Canadians are total hosers.

    by theran on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 10:39:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well (13+ / 0-)

      Not speaking particularly about the Lamont campaign because I don't know anything about. Also, there are reports here that it is the Lieberman team who are making excessive numbers of calls.

      However, I will say that, in general, campaigns seem hugely unwilling to pay people to do stuff, and to do it right. Just about the only thing they'll pay for are expensive media buys (which line the pockets of they very consultants who insist on them - see Gates, Crashing The).

      Most campaigns seem to want to devote every last dollar to paid media. Everything left over is scraps. So you have people saying, "Oh, we can get some open-source software to do phonebanking for free! And we can get volunteers to do it for free!" Free free free.

      And of course, you get what you pay for. I'm not talking about the people who volunteer to make the phone calls. Those people work from scripts, and obviously aren't at fault for any programmatic failures. (Unless, of course, you have a Conrad Burns view of the world.)

      I'm talking about the people running the various GOTV projects. If you don't actually pay someone competent a decent salary to do a committed job, then you're going to wind up with crud much of the time. Until campaigns start re-focusing their spending priorities, I think we'll continue to see plenty of crap.

      I'm convinced that a big part of the reason that the GOP GOTV operation is so damn good is because they actually hire and pay for top talent.

      •  Excessive calls (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madhaus, xtrarich, hhex65, fugue

        This is interesting..  I wonder what's really going on.  Who benefits from low turnout?  Who benefits from a badly coordinated operation with a high number of volunteers who manage to call the same people over and over?  Who's messing with expectations by floating the rumor that the Q poll shows a Lamont blowout?

        Just sayin', this all seems oddly like history repeating itself to me.

        Where's my orange hat

      •  First I'll say (5+ / 0-)

        that that's a great comment.

        Second I'll say, to some degree you get what you pay for with volunteers doing calls.  Not really, of course.  You get a lot of great, dedicated people doing incredible work.

        But I did hear a lot of variation among the volunteers making calls this afternoon.  In some cases that was great - people sounded genuinely human and invested and you could tell they were doing it because they were passionate about the race and I'm sure it was harder for people to be rude to them.  In other cases...not so much.  Maybe people were half-following the script but cutting corners in ways that sounded a little less polite - not intentionally, just that they weren't thinking about how these were strangers and all.  Maybe people weren't actually following the script, were taking too long to get to the point, offering all kinds of pointless extra information about how they were sitting in Lamont headquarters blah blah blah.  (I'm not claiming perfection for myself, either - my liability on the phone or in person is a reluctance to seal the deal.  I ask people the first question and tend to wimp out on the follow-ups that might get actual action out of them.)

        I think this might point to a problem with the kind of huge last-minute push - that experienced staff don't really have the chance to train or even to evaluate volunteers and try to do a little triage, maybe push the less ept ones toward work where they won't be interacting with the public as much.  You know, you walk in, they plunk you down at a phone with 2 minutes of instruction, and you go to it.  

        But I think the degree to which we can find fault with campaigns for these kinds of things varies by the campaign.  Basically, did they have reason to believe it would be so tight at the end?  If they knew a tight one was coming, they should've been ready.  If, like Lamont, they had no reason to believe it would be this close until quite recently, then they just deserve our awed respect for keeping all these balls in the air at all.

        •  Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's why I kept my comments generalized. I have no idea what is going on specifically with the Lamont campaign (or the Lieberman campaign for that matter). But, in general, the extremely unwillingness of campaigns to pay for shit is a serious problem.

          It sort of dovetails with what I might call the "Liberal Purity Fantasy" - ie, a real liberal works for free, 80 hours a week, because he believes in the cause. If he can't quit his paying job, or if he demands money, then he's a fraud and a failure.

          Now, I don't think the consultant class harbors these views - to the contrary, they have no problem with money. The liberal purity trolls, rather, seem to be a fringe group - but one with suprising currency. My point only is that you have dual dysfunctions in the liberal world (the paid media consultant class and the purity trolls), which make it even harder for the idea of "paying good people for good work" to catch on.

          •  The dovetail. (0+ / 0-)

            Is it sort of a divide of people within the campaign full-time are expected to do it for below minimum wage, while money goes to people brought in from outside?  So you have your cake and eat it too - the campaign is pure and only has to deal with people impure enough to earn good money on a consultancy basis.

            I guess in a weird way you end up replicating the US - some people making lots, some people making ridiculously little, very few people in the middle.  The question then is, is there a way to reorganize the structure so that more people make in the middle and fewer at the extremes?

    •  turf wars? (6+ / 0-)

      GOTV done by interest groups + turf wars (everyone has their own lists) = lack of coordination

      lack of a good central database + lack of a good data mining operation + lack of coordination amongst the groups doing GOTV = GOP wins

      See today (er, yesterday now) WaPo lead story on DCCC doing their own GOTV efforts because they don't have confidence in the DNC and so on

      I have no idea how we get out of this morass..

    •  Hey Dude! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      btw.  your wife sure is beautiful, and she has a lot of style.

      you must have a basket full of 4-leaf clovers!

      believe me, even if ya good lookin, we all need luck in life.

      •  What's up? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Al Rodgers

        And I'll pass the compliment along.  We met when I drove into her mailbox a few days after we moved into different sides of a duplex.  I definitely put it down to luck.

        Fake Canadians are total hosers.

        by theran on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 04:46:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site