Wednesday, November 8, 2017

My Experience working on a campaign (with Democrats)

So I spend the past few days (took Monday, Tuesday off work) to do some canvassing and calling on behalf of a local political candidate who I happen to know personally.  To be clear, this was a local non-party-affiliated race, but both candidate happened to be registered and active Democrats.

Moreover, the fact that I am not a registered active Democrat was not discussed. As far as most everyone knew, I was just as liberal as everyone else.

The candidate I was supporting is a lifelong resident of the city. Born, schooled, raised, and currently a new homeowner. A younger kid (thirtyish) who's political ambitions has been well known since he was a young child. He currently works full time for a legislator, doing policy research, campaigning, and other miscellaneous activities. He serves on a local arts and education board, and is an unpaid appointed commissioner to a housing board. He's been involved (behind the scenes) in many elections in many capacities, even managing a campaign. This was his first attempt at being the actual candidate. 

The other candidate was an immigrant who primarily grew up in the city, but had moved away for several years, working and living much of that overseas. He recently moved back to the city, where he has become active in the Democratic Party in terms of attending events, and I believe he served as a delegate at one time. He was described by some as an "activist". Otherwise, he had no policy experience, experience actually working in legislator or government. His argument for his candidacy was simple. He is a minority. He is an immigrant. He worked internationally in business.

The strategies were very different. While our candidate had many volunteers, and personally knocked several thousand doors and made several thousand phone calls, his opponent did far less in terms of personal canvassing, and phone calls. He relied heavily on signage and literature. While driving around, I probably saw as much as a 10-1 signage advantage for our opponent. It felt somewhat daunting, but the experienced campaigners said that signage was an overrated campaign tool.

The blind spot:

But at the end of the day, this really boiled down to a simple choice. A white Christian male, with lots of policy experience, working hard to talk to people at a personal level, against the minority candidate who felt his diversity of being born elsewhere, and having international business experience was his key to being a strong candidate.

Now what I found interesting is that within the campaign, the volunteers I met and family members understood this. They realized that their candidate (a Democrat) was being challenged by someone playing the diversity card. They didn't like it. On paper, there was no contest as to whom was the more qualified candidate. But even one of the volunteers admitted that prior to talking to our candidate, she had been leaning towards the other guy for that very reason (wanted to vote for diversity).

This lead to some discussion as to whether or not we all should be looking past the whole identity thing, and really look at who the candidates were and what they stood for. After all, that was what they were basically asking voters to do in this case. We wanted them to look "past" the fact that our guy was white and their guy was a minority and vote for who would make the better legislator.

But when a discussion broke out at a later time regarding the St Paul Mayors race, everyone quickly agreed that they wanted Melvin Carter to win. Why?  Because he would be St Paul's first black mayor. Did we not just have this discussion? 

Longer discussions:

All of this led later to a one on one discussion (me and a family member of the candidate) as to whether or not the Democrats may be putting less qualified candidate who may not be as capable as others of actually performing the job, because Democrats (in general) really like voting for diversity. Could this be hurting the Party long term, because the candidates are less successful after being elected, because their main qualification is just their background or color of their skin?

Ultimately: 

Our candidate won rather handily. In fact, it was a double digit percentage point victory. My best guess is that while these two candidates were fighting over who was the better Democrat, likely splitting up the liberal Democrat vote....  being the lifetime resident, and being the experienced candidate probably worked largely to his advantage with independents and Republicans (since there was no conservative in the race).

Afterwards, it was asked what the other guy was thinking, being he got pretty much waxed. Would he feel like he got outworked. Would he believe that he should have done more that put up signs and mail literature. Might he attempt to get more involved to build his resume if he decides to run again.

Am I the only one who understands? Since this guy's argument was that he was qualified because he was a minority and an immigrant and this particular argument was rejected by the voters. Those voters must be bigots and racists, and that's why the white Christian guy won. I guarantee you that was the buzz within his ranks.

25 comments:

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You know how I feel on most issues. For the most part, your comments were well written. But at the end, you once again, claim that underneath the decision to vote for the white candidate, because of a deeply held racist beliefs.

". Those voters must be bigots and racists, and that's why the white Christian guy won. I guarantee you that was the buzz within his ranks."

It looks like the most qualified candidate won. Not because his opponent was by chance, not a white guy. He had been living elsewhere, and the voters wanted to stick with the guy who was a long time resident and from the looks of things, the guy who you were working for, was the more qualified candidate.

The "buzz" is pure speculation on your part.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

The "buzz" is a pure speculative conclusion based on a very logical argument.

The guy felt he was best qualified for the office, because he was a minority, because he was an immigrant, and because he worked internationally. This was on his campaign literature. This was on his website. That is what he talked about at the candidate forums.

He (for all practical purposes) told people to vote for him "because" he represented diversity. Either he was completely full of shit, or he believed that his diversity made him qualified (in and of itself).

So as a tangible fact this candidate barely reached 40% of the vote. His argument was rejected by a majority of the voters.

If you are being "honest" Roger... knowing that someone argued diversity, immigrant, minority over and over.. and then lost in a landslide... how do you suppose him and his close supporters and volunteers (likely mostly minorities themselves) saw his loss? They obviously believed that "diversity" was a valid argument.

If you are being "honest" Roger... whenever a woman, or a minority loses as a Democrat... it's always because of their sex or race. Never because of the issues.

Why do you suppose it would be different in a local race?

C.H. Truth said...

Opps...

I apologize. It's not always misogyny or racism. Sometimes it's the Russians.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for real on the ground insight.


President Hillary Clinton, oh what could have been.

Is today the day the left accept the loss?

"Yell helplessly at the SKY" a National DNC movement.

Anonymous said...

Jv obama 2 elections prove the USA is post racial.

Anonymous said...

Russians threw election to the two democrat governor's that won.

Loretta said...

"Morning Joe: “there are some questions as to what Donald Trump might do if he loses”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/11/election-day-2016-morning-awaiting-hillary-clintons-historic-victory/

Happy anniversary!!

Amused, James said...

Happy Anniversary indeed!

‘A Stinging Repudiation of Trump’

James Hohamnn: “Tuesday was the best day for Democrats politically since Barack Obama won reelection in 2012. Remember, conservatives scored significant victories in the November 2014, 2015 and 2016 elections. Democrats desperately needed some wins after they went all-in on a House special election in Georgia this spring and lost. Last night, they got them.

“Voters came out in droves. They braved the rain and the cold to send a message to President Trump. The results across the country represent nothing less than a stinging repudiation of Trump on the first anniversary of his election.”

Anonymous said...

President Trump is winning in Asia.

Hillary is doing ehat?

Anonymous said...

Hillary is doing what?

C.H. Truth said...

James -

I spoke to every single Virginia voter this morning on a conference call. To a person they all assured me that this had everything to do with sticking it to this guy named Fred who works at a car dealership in Portsmouth and nothing to do with Trump.

Just saying...

Loretta said...

"Hillary is doing what?"

Trying to figure out how to silence Donna without getting caught.

Thankfully, she doesn't hold the title of Madam President.

It's a great day.

Anonymous said...




one year ago today:


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1


Anonymous said...

A year ago, the talking heads in the lame stream media has this race over, it was all Hillary all of the time.

She was to be the first woman after the fast black and that meant something, until it didn't.

Anonymous said...

Roger Amick said...
Why? Because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

If the crowd size matters, the crowd in Philadelphia last night Clinton will win a landslide.

November 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM"

Kerry landslide followed by Hillary landslide.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Swing and blue states HB Projections
New Hampshire: Clinton
Pennsylvania: Clinton
Ohio: Trump. barely. Could move to Clinton if Cleveland goes hard Clinton
Nevada: Clinton
North Carolina: Clinton?
Florida: Clinton
Minnesota: Clinton
Michigan: Clinton
Wisconsin: Clinton
New Mexico: Clinton
Georgia: Clinton: Barely but ..

All based on facts and experience.

Comey letter has minimal but sufficient to move one or two percent in those voting tomorrow.

Clinton has Obama, Gore, Bernie, Bill Clinton, Biden. Outstanding field offices in critical states like Pennsylvania. Trump: .........
Trump has ... Trump

Neither the speaker of the house, or majority leader will appear at his events. Trump gets.. Giuliani. Who forgot who was mayor of New York on 9/11

The devastation will be confirmed by 10: 45 PM EST.

November 7, 2016 at 4:08 PM"


wphamilton said...

CH, didn't the two candidates have positions and issues? Or did they campaign entirely on resume vs identity?

Maybe your guy's positions had more influence than the other guy's status as a diversity candidate.

Anonymous said...

LOL

Anonymous said...

So Dems regained "MO".
At some point you have to win on the road. The Session Senate Seat??

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Yes. The guy who had positions and made policy arguments won. The guy who seemingly relied almost solely on the fact that he was a minority and immigrant lost.

So no doubt that was the overwhelming influence (in my opinion).

My first point to the story is that even some of those working for him had to admit that if they didn't either already know him, or hadn't spent time talking to him, that those issues may not have mattered and they may have voted for the other guy for diversity sake. That point I know first hand.

I believe that had he not gone out and knocked 6000 doors and made hundreds of phone calls personally... that he may not have won. I believe it literally took him making people listen to the arguments.

My second point is that there is little doubt in my mind that supporters of the other guy probably blamed the loss (which was a rejection of the idea that being an immigrant and minority alone was good enough to win) as a form of racism or bigotry. I doubt whether they looked in the mirror and thought.... maybe we should have some policy positions and maybe we should have had some other experience other than being born and living out of the country.

Anonymous said...




12 months later trump wins again:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/06/12-months-later-trump-would-probably-still-win-the-2016-election/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.7df56f6868f2

Anonymous said...

That fact he would win again is amazing.

Anonymous said...

When will the liberals be over the Trump win?

Anonymous said...

Ralph Northam
Small business owner
Doctor
Veteran
Cut spending to achieve a balanced budget

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Yawn