Archive for category: Public Affairs

Birds sing. Dogs bark. Children play. And political pundits make predictions. They just cannot help themselves. It’s a function that comes as naturally to them as breathing. (A GOP communicator I spoke with over a month ago vociferously declared to me, “Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee.”) Now that a Clinton-Trump 2016 matchup is virtually assured, here’s my advice to the pundits: you don’t always have to pretend you have all the answers. After considering the groundbreaking nature of the 2016 presidential election, the smartest people in politics aren’t making up answers; they’re asking questions.

Here are four things we DON’T KNOW about this election (and likely won’t really be answered until Wednesday, November 9th).

1. Who will win?

A diet of cable news commentators with a sprinkling of opinion columnists would have you believe Hillary Clinton is on her way to trouncing Donald Trump in the general election. The more rational of these observers tend to support the claim by pointing out that, while Clinton is unpopular, Trump is more unpopular. The reality is this is an unprecedented election where both major party candidates have shattered records with their net unfavorability ratings. It certainly seems possible that the messaging of these two campaigns could turn into a proverbial race to the bottom to see who can boost the other’s negative ratings more by Election Day. How that translates into mood, turnout and issue prioritization of the electorate is anyone’s guess.

2. Where will “Bernie or Bust” and “Never Trump” voters go?

The GOP is just beginning the process of unifying around Trump and the Democrats will have to do the same. Some have already discussed the strange possible alliance between Sanders’ base of support and Trump. Likewise, there are segments of the Republican Party who have vowed #NeverTrump who may never fall in line. Keep in mind, the Koch brothers have refused to back any candidate thus far, and while they have traditionally backed Republican candidates, their true ideology is far more libertarian. It remains to be seen how both groups go about consolidating support behind their nominees and what degree of success they find, but securing the support of the disaffected factions left over from their fractious primaries will prove crucial in November. The ultimate wildcard, for instance, could be the Libertarian Party making the politically savvy move of nominating former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and him qualifying for the general election debates.

3. Should we trust polling?

For the reasons listed above, polling may prove especially unreliable in this election. Pollsters may also find themselves scrambling for updated and untested polling models to reflect the huge questions of turnout 2016 poses. The Republican primaries and caucuses brought out droves of new voters, all of whom may not be accounted for in existing polling models. All of this comes at a time when the polling industry is already defending its credibility after failures to accurately predict electoral outcomes in 2012 and 2014.

4. How will these candidates impact other campaigns?

Much of the supposed conventional wisdom seems to suggest Trump’s unfavorability at the top of the Republican ticket is going to leading to the GOP losing the Senate and possibly the House of Representatives. This fails to take into account that other piece of political conventional wisdom: all politics is local. No one can predict the variations of split tickets that may be cast at the ballot box in this election. Keep in mind, as just one example, the same Indiana electorate that backed Donald Trump also nominated Mitch McConnell-backed Todd Young for the U.S. Senate over House Freedom Caucus member Martin Stutzman. Some Republican candidates have personalities and histories with their constituents that overtake any “nationalization” of their race. Other Republican candidates may actually be helped by Trump’s nomination because of the demographics of their specific districts or states. The bottom line is that it’s presumptuous to simply predict that Trump will cost Republicans the Senate and hurt all candidates down ticket.

Election season is a lot like March Madness basketball. Every season it comes around and something unpredictable happens and everyone proclaims this is the truly paradigm shattering year. This is usually hyperbole, but every once in a while it’s actually true. This is one of those years. That’s why news consumers should view all predictions with an extra dose of skepticism. If your friends ask you what you think is going to happen between now and Election Day, the only smart answer is: “I don’t know.”

Last week we published our analysis of the rule that could lead to chaos in the Republican primary process. Delve CEO Jeff Berkowitz spoke with the New York Times on how this rule may impact Republicans looking to defeat Donald Trump in the coming months:

“‘The best case scenario for the Never Trump backers is to throw the convention into disarray, either by ensuring Trump does not reach the eight-state threshold so the rules have to be changed, or by changing the rules even if he does,’ said Jeff Berkowitz, a former Republican National Committee official.”

Jeff also spoke with MSNBC’s Ari Melber on potential rules changes:

“Jeff Berkowitz, who worked three conventions as an RNC official, says there would be a revolt if the convention rules are changed simply to stop Trump. Asked about  [Ben] Ginsberg’s description of the temporary rules, Berkowitz laughed, saying ‘that’s right from a legal standpoint, but there would be a huge eruption at anything seen as the establishment stealing it from the rightful winner.’”

Other media outlets and journalists highlighted Delve’s analysis as well, including CBS Political Director and Face the Nation moderator John Dickerson, Washington Examiner Managing Editor Philip Klein, Texas Monthly Senior Editor Erica Grieder, and CNBC data reporter Mark Fahey. Our original Medium post was also listed in the Financial Times’ Alphaville Blog morning news briefing and The Browser daily news report.

When the din of the debate reaches its height, you would expect an opposition researcher to be smiling broadly, but last night, I was deeply troubled. Last night, we saw the research begin to drop on Donald Trump and all I could think was, “Where was all of this material six months ago?” Considering the treasure trove of opposition research a life like Trump’s inevitably accrues, how could it possibly have taken this long to really begin using it in earnest? With all the GOP hand-wringing over Trump’s ascendancy, what could have possibly stymied this process? What the hell went wrong?

As someone who has been involved in multiple presidential and other major campaign research operations, I have some answers to these questions that help explain why I was so deeply troubled.

Last night’s debate exposed a monumental failure in the Republican Presidential campaigns, so the question becomes did the researchers fail the campaign leadership or did the campaign leadership fail the researchers? I would argue the latter. From the beginning, these campaigns have not taken research seriously. Certainly not as seriously as it has been taken in the past. No Republican presidential campaign has hired and empowered a research director as a senior campaign official or built the research teams and resources needed to dig deep into their opponents’ backgrounds and build a narrative against them.

From the beginning last winter, the campaigns approached opposition research as a passive aggressive prisoner’s dilemma, hoping, praying and assuming that someone was whittling their spoon into a shank so that they would not have to do it. More than one campaign operative argued to me (and others), “It’s such a big field, there’s no point doing the research because Candidate X’s team is going to have to take out Candidate Y anyways.” Others argued a super PAC would come along to save the day.

Whether it was wishful thinking, a squirreling of campaign dollars, or a lack of appreciation for the strategic advantage opposition research can provide, the result was that none of the campaigns put in the time or effort to dig deep into the opponents — least of all Donald Trump, who was dismissed as a summer fling, then a fall affair, and then… oh my, he’s winning the nomination.

None of them acknowledged the problem, and none of them took action when it would have made a huge (yuge?) difference. It is most likely too late, but last night Marco Rubio showed how it should have been done a long time ago. The age old wisdom parents have given their bullied children: punch back and expose how weak the bully is. Throughout the fall, hoping Trump would fall by someone else’s shank or his own doing, the campaigns thought they could then pick up his supporters. All that time was wasted while Trump became a movement.

Like any candidate for the Presidency, Trump should be held accountable for his record and this vetting process should have begun months ago. Now that we are at this point in the primary process, the Democrats and mainstream media will gleefully do the vetting for us in the general election. The reason it did not begin earlier is that even once the campaigns realized Trump would not fade, they did not have the research infrastructure in place to sound the alarm and fire back.

It is complete and utter political malpractice that Republican voters have had to wait ten full debates, four primary contests, and an entire summer and fall of campaigning for any candidate to put together and actually use serious opposition research against Donald Trump. Even if one is a Trump supporter, this fact should be deeply concerning. Trying and testing our candidates in the primary process better prepares them for defeating the Democratic nominee in the fall.

This failure is a direct result of the low priority these campaigns placed on their research operations. For proof, look no further than the campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. They show that just seven of the 17 Republicans campaigns made any expenditures on research and they averaged far less than $200,000 spent on research, even when accounting for research staff salaries. That is an inexcusable rounding error for what should be serious national campaigns.

In 2008, when I served as Mayor Giuliani’s campaign research director, my peers on the other primary campaigns and I were given seats at the table as part of the campaign’s senior leadership. We were involved in and helped inform the broad strategy and messaging, which allowed each candidate to be better served. All the campaigns had experienced leaders in research who had the reputation and understanding necessary to help drive strategy.

In 2016, none of the campaigns have (or had) a known and respected research director as a senior campaign staffer who sits at the decision making table. None of the campaigns invested the time and money in deep research that they should have, relying too much on rapid response paper pushing. None of the campaigns, therefore, were in a position to be proactive when it would have mattered.

If early money is like yeast, early oppo is like gunpowder. Stored well and carefully deployed at the right time, it can win you the race. Let it sit too long and it may explode on you, or not at all. The failure of the 2016 Republican campaigns to appreciate this reality has led us to this moment. And to my depression.

Research 101, Lesson One: In campaigns, define your opponent early and often.

It’s been said that by the time you recognize certain problems, it’s already too late to stop them. Like the Titanic steaming toward an iceberg, only to sound the alarm after it was too late to stop or turn. Or that extra drink that it took you to realize you already had one too many and have now agreed to go to a karaoke bar.

Hillary Clinton now faces this challenge as Bernie Sanders’ poll numbers rise in the early primary states. Polling has Sanders leading Clinton by double digits in New Hampshire and neck and neck in the upcoming Iowa caucuses. These numbers clearly, and rightfully, have many in Hillary’s campaign leadership fraught with concern. So, after accruing an undoubtedly substantial book of opposition research on the junior Senator from Vermont, Team Hillary has begun launching some of the juiciest attacks in their arsenal. The problem — it’s not going to work.

To understand why this strategy will be futile, one has to understand what I call the Castle Doctrine of Opposition Research. The term is coined for Mike Castle, a moderate Republican Congressman (and former Governor) who ran for Delaware’s open U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Castle was widely presumed to be the nominee and have a strong chance of winning the general election. But he failed to take seriously a primary challenge from a right-wing two-time failed candidate named Christine O’Donnell.

O’Donnell today is most famous for having to clarify that she was not in fact a witch, but during the primary, she was able to define herself as the grassroots Tea Party solution to taking back Congress. In the final weeks of the primary, Castle’s campaign finally unleashed an assault on O’Donnell. But it was too late. O’Donnell defeated Castle by just over 3,500 votes. As was later shown in the general election, the universe of oppo on O’Donnell was bountiful and effective in defeating her — even in a campaign against a once “bearded Marxist.” If Castle’s team had been prepared for the threat and acted earlier, defining O’Donnell as an unelectable, fringe candidate who would guarantee continued Democratic control of the Senate, things might have been different. As the Castle Doctrine teaches us, if you do not define your opponent early and often, they will define themselves.

In 2000 and 2004, the Bush campaigns put on a masterclass in defining their opponents early and often. When Al Gore appeared on the debate stage and came off as a dull, aloof policy wonk, it merely confirmed the image the Bush campaign had been pushing to the public and press for months. As part of the 2004 research team for President Bush’s re-election, I know that we started calling John Kerry a flip-flopper in January 2003, and we never stopped. Using a mountain of examples showing John Kerry’s record of flip-flops, we pushed that narrative with the press and public. By March 2014, when Kerry claimed he voted for funding our troops before he voted against it, his fate was sealed.

In 2012, Obama’s strategists employed this playbook to great effect against Mitt Romney. While Romney was stuck fighting his way through a bloody primary, the Obama campaign was busy portraying Mitt as a heartless corporate automaton who neither shared your values nor cared about people like you. For voters, Romney’s infamous 47% comment only secured a belief already instilled in them by the Obama messaging machine.

The idea behind the Castle Doctrine is to inoculate your campaign from a potentially serious opponent before they even become a threat. In order to do this, you must lay the foundation for any attacks you may want to use further down the road by defining the opponent in such a way that those attacks support what the public has come to believe about them. It’s as simple as the ancient adage from The Art of War, “Every battle is won or lost before it is ever fought.” In this case, to define your opponent before they can define themselves is key to victory.

The Clinton campaign’s failure to begin using their best oppo to define Bernie Sanders as the left-wing, fringe candidate that he is has allowed him to define himself as the progressive savior and fresh voice the Democratic Party needs.

As Team Hillary continues to cart out hits like Bernie’s glowing audio tribute to his hero, Eugene Debs, the media and voters have already decided who Bernie Sanders is to them. It may be simply too late to turn Hillary’s Titanic away from Iowa iceberg of how the electorate views Bernie, and the more aggressive the attacks become, the more Sanders supporters will point to them as evidence that their candidate is gaining momentum. Whatever silver bullets Clinton’s opposition researchers have been able to accrue on Sanders will sadly be fired in vein, as they bounce off the armor Bernie has built by defining himself before Clinton took up arms.

Of course, there’s also the question of whether hitting a lifelong Socialist as, well, a lifelong Socialist, is actually a problem for Democratic voters, but that’s a discussion for Lesson Two. Stay tuned.