A well-seasoned incumbent is leading his upstart challenger by a big margin, but late in the campaign, the polls, enthusiasm, and momentum drastically change, baffling the career politician…
Some people say politics is all about perception. Others argue it’s persuasion. Then, there are those who postulate it’s really populism.
They’re all wrong.
It’s about positioning, picking and choosing what’s right for the particular audience – pandering the cynics call it. At least, that’s what I used to think. That is, before this last campaign began. A run that should have resulted in a win. But, went down to humiliating defeat.
I ought to know precisely what happened because I was there – right in the middle of it. In the end, though I was only the messenger, the bearer of bad news, I was still the one who got shot. Truth is, we all got caught flat-footed. Regardless, I guess none of us saw it coming.
In fact, not a single person of us working on the reelection did. While we were focused on the campaign, our opponent was focused on the voters. Strange as that sounds, it’s exactly how the challenger mounted a comeback, and ultimately, a decisive victory.
It taught me a very valuable lesson many others had previously learned – there’s no such thing as a sure thing. Prestige, power, and money can certainly be advantageous. But, they’re no match for ingenuity. People who take the cliche of thinking outside the box to heart can be far more effective than the status quo.
Funny, that’s exactly how I fell into the consulting business – I turned conventional wisdom on its head. Actually, I spun the head off a politician seeking another term at a friendly fundraiser. He didn’t know what hit him. My impromptu performance was so strong, I was recruited on the spot.
Guess that it’s more than possible it gave me a sense of superiority. Not in an arrogant way. But, more like a feeling of self-confidence I’d never experienced before. That morphed into a healthy skepticism that allowed me to question standard practices. And, a quality that candidates liked – always putting platitudes to an earnest test.
This methodology served me quite well for quite a while. But, it all proved useless this last election cycle. A race we started with a sizable lead, grew into a bigger one, and eventually thought of as insurmountable. Turns out, that wasn’t our only mistake, nor was it the first. Nope. The first miscalculation came from misunderstanding our opponent’s strategy. And now that I think about it, that’s what got me into the game years ago.
Beware Friendly Fire
I had just left college – which is simply a euphemism for dropping out. Being young and not knowing what I wanted to do with my life, I did what most twenty-somethings of my generation did – wandered aimlessly – picking up a job here and a job there, but not taking any of them seriously.
Then, one day, a friend of a friend asked me to go with her to a fundraiser. Puzzled by the invitation – because it wasn’t something I was necessarily interested in – but curious about the experience, I agreed. What came next was not, in any way, pre-planned. It was totally spontaneous, a complete impromptu moment.
The beginning of the event was nothing less than downright boring. People talked a lot about the upcoming election. Conversations were partisan, though not dogmatic. And, definitely not particularly passionate. In fact, that was the oddest thing. It struck me because it certainly wasn’t what I expected.
Then, food was served. Actually, snacks, I should say. Regardless, people really enjoyed them and while we were eating, someone asked the candidate a simple question. His answer was totally predictable and did not stray far from a pre-written, many times often repeated, talking point.
Frankly, the response annoyed me. Most of the attendees gave money to his campaign and all they got in return were run-of-the-mill snacks and pablum. Not familiar with how these kinds of affairs are supposed to go (even though my cousin had served many terms in elected office), I proceeded to ask a more direct follow-up question.
Again, the answer did not reveal any particular insight. More precisely, it conspicuously lacked a plan. Simply put, there was no “how.” Pressing for a strategy did nothing more than prompt another cliche. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed and began to wonder how this person not only got elected previously but was still in office and running for reelection.
“I appreciate your vision but just how do you intend on carrying it out? That is to say, how are going to get the local union on board and not upset the establishment? Plus, you’ve got some major appropriation hurdles to clear and that means having to extend an olive branch to the other side – who, might I remind you, are firmly aligned against such a move. You need at least a few to get even close to cloture.”
“Well, I think we can get from A to B without giving up too many concessions. I’ve struck up a number of friendships with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and can leverage those relationships to…”
“To what? They’ve already steamrolled us on this issue several times before and I still don’t hear a plan for how to overcome that. Forging alliances may get you so far, but it won’t get you anywhere near your goal. What you need is a clear, actionable plan. You know, concrete steps to follow one by one?”
“And, I suppose by your eagerness, that you have such a plan already thought out? Something that we can get going on right away that’s bound to produce the desired results?”
“No, not at all. That’s your job. I’m simply pointing out the fact that you’ve made quite a few bold statements in this campaign, which is a bit unusual for someone who is running without a primary fight. It also hasn’t been lost on me – and I’m sure to many others – that you’ve made these promises before. Yet, here we are and it appears you’re running the same playbook.”
“That’s an interesting observation…although I’m not totally sure it’s entirely accurate. What do you say we continue our discussion later, just between the two of us? I think these fine folks would rather that this conversation not be so contentious.”
I just grinned and shook my head in agreement, thinking that would be the end of it. But, as I stood up and turned my attention elsewhere, he walked by from behind and put his hand on my shoulder, then invited me to chat privately after the event. I fully expected a confrontation – to what extent, I didn’t know. However, that’s not at all what happened. Instead of an uncomfortable, angry encounter, it was downright pleasant, complete with an invitation to join on as an advisor.
The offer completely floored me but the explanation made sense when he said, “You’ve got quite a perception and a unique way of playing devil’s advocate. I almost thought I was in some type of impromptu debate. Plus, you have a keen sense of what’s really going on. Tell me, who trained you?”
I explained that my cousin had run in a number of elections and being relatively close to one another, I absorbed some of the inside baseball through osmosis. He pushed back a little, prying, “That’s more than just being close to the inside. You sure you haven’t been directly mentored?”
“No, not really. I’m just a quick learner. And, it seems I have a knack for being able to emulate things in a genuine-looking way.”
He couldn’t believe what he was hearing and said as much. But, that didn’t deter him from extending the offer again. Only this time, he was much more down to earth and I could tell he thought my two cents would be worthwhile. Though, he did inquire if I’d been in a similar situation before – all I could think of was one particular instance.
Piling Sandbags
It happened in my first year in college. I was in a core class, if I recall, it was literary history. The reason I’m not sure was because I never finished that specific class – precisely because of the incident just mentioned.
The term had only begun a week ago when the professor asked us to give our interpretation of the character Don Quixote. But, it wasn’t the ad-lib assignment, it was the way he asked the class in such a snide manner, “How would you characterize Don Quixote? Would you call him a complete fool? You know? Like our former mayor.”
I immediately took issue with this because I knew who he was talking about. The person he was referring to had been out of office for two terms and practically all of his policies and initiatives were either radically changed or abandoned. The result was nothing less than disastrous.
As the professor went about his tirade, I concocted a counterpoint strategy and asked, “How was the former mayor like Don Quixote?”
“Well, he was a total fool and complete buffoon.”
“How so?”
“He just didn’t know what he was doing – that’s all too clear.”
“Oh, I’m sorry, Professor – you have me at a disadvantage. I was much younger when he was in office and my family didn’t even live in the city. We were a couple of counties away.”
“No problem. What is it you want to know?”
“How was the ex-mayor incompetent?”
“Because…he was wholly inept!”
“Oh. I see. If you could indulge me for a moment, please, Professor?”
“Yes, certainly.”
“Wasn’t there a big budget shortfall before he took office?”
“Yes, the city was in a bad economic condition.”
“And, wasn’t there a strike that took a huge toll, too?”
“Indeed, it crippled the municipality.”
“Also, I seem to remember something about major companies moving out and taking all kinds of jobs with them.”
“That’s correct, as well.”
“If I’m not mistaken, the crime rate was also way up prior to his first term.”
“Unfortunately, public safety was an issue at the time.”
“So, when he took office, the budget was a mess, a strike threw the city into chaos, there was a corporate mass exodus, and crime was on the rise.”
“Yes to all.”
“Well, then, Professor, tell me something. Was any of that true when he left office?”
The professor’s smug smile immediately left his face, replaced by a stern look of the utmost contempt because the fact of the matter was the mayor we spoke about did turn everything around. In fact, his administration was one of the most successful in the city’s history – the professor just disagreed with his politics and refused to give credit where credit was due.
The points I made weren’t lost on the rest of the class and they burst out into laughter. My sandbagging strategy had worked. I led him into a false sense of security and hit him when he least expected it. A tactic that unsurprisingly led to him being humiliated and angry – something he dealt with by approaching me after class and telling me he would give me a failing grade no matter what I did from there on out. Facing a no-win situation, I promptly dropped the class and enrolled in another.
But, I guess I did not take the right lesson away from the incident. Instead, I went about my way and eventually, found myself jabbing at an incumbent candidate who was running for reelection unopposed. Fortunately, that particular exchange landed me a role with the same politician’s campaign as a strategy advisor.
“You’ve got quite a perception and a unique way of playing devil’s advocate. I almost thought I was in some type of impromptu debate. Plus, you have a keen sense of what’s really going on. Tell me, who trained you?”
“No one really. I probably picked it up from my cousin, who’s been in politics for quite a while.”
“That’s more than just being close to the inside. You sure you haven’t been directly mentored?”
“No, not really. I’m just a quick learner. And, it seems I have a knack for being able to emulate things in a genuine-looking way.”
“Regardless, I’d like to have you work on my campaign. So, what do you say?”
I agreed, though I didn’t actually understand in what capacity. But, I did get the fact that someone who is in the game appreciated my disposition. By the end of the race, the incumbent was back in his seat and I gained an infamous reputation. Still, the old cliche holds true, that there is just no such thing as bad press.
I even managed to develop my own approach, which would serve me well in future campaigns. However, what was even better was the fact I inadvertently stumbled onto a really workable game plan – a new spin on an old blueprint.
Defying Physics
Science tells us that it’s not possible for two objects to occupy the same space. But, it doesn’t say anything about political issues.
For the politically uninitiated, people who’ve never run a campaign before, there is a neat trick some candidates try, and when it catches on, boy does it work. In fact, when it works, it can completely unhinge an opponent.
It’s basically stealing an issue away from the other side. Whether it’s genuine or by hook and crook, it can easily unleash havoc on the rival. But, that’s the caveat, this trick is most effective against a general election challenger and not necessarily an incumbent. That being said, if it can be teed up against a current office holder, it typically spells doom for the seat occupant.
So, what is this magic? Well, it’s taking an issue away or forcing an issue off the table – analogous to two things occupying the same space simultaneously. Sure, physics states this is impossible. But, we’re not talking about the same dynamic.
The very next campaign I was involved in gave me the inspiration to try to pull this trick off. What makes it so memorable is the fact that I accidentally walked into it and only recognized its potential after putting it into action.
It was in the early stages of the race and our candidate was behind – way down in the polls and fundraising alike. Unsurprisingly, morale was low. Needing a boost and a change in momentum, I was put in charge of the next phase.
Now, not because I was somehow seen as the best person for the job, but it was due to the fact that a more experienced advisor wanted to set up a scapegoat and I was a potential fall guy. Although, that scheme backfired and the blowback was huge. Lucky me.
Some might call it the flip-a-roo or identify this maneuver by another cutesy name. But, whether it’s “toe-mate-toe” or “toe-mot-toe,” doesn’t really matter – it’s the end result that counts.
The plan starts with a little research to understand a popular issue. Then, identifying common ground, followed by offering a unique perspective or tentative solution. If a candidate can do these things and then communicate effectively, the strategy either negates an issue or puts it squarely in the hands of the one executing the move. The opponent may realize what’s happening, but usually can’t keep an exclusive grip.
Sometimes, it requires a little creative jujitsu. But, when done right, works like a charm. In this specific case, the idea came to me from a most unlikely source – a parent having to deal with a defiant child.
One day, while racking my brain for a way to catch up in the race, I saw something that I’d never quite seen before. It was an ordinary scene, a parent in a little cafe trying to deal with a visibly obstinate kid who was clearly over-tired.
The kid refused to eat everything on the plate, telling his mother, “But, I don’t like vegetables!”
“You know something, honey? Vegetables aren’t my favorite, either. Regardless, you need to eat your fruits and veggies.”
“Okay, I’ll eat the fruit but not the veggies.”
“Actually, you need to eat both. After all, you need your vitamins and minerals.”
“All right. I’ll eat the fruit and if I’m still hungry, I’ll eat some of the vegetables.”
“No, you need to eat both – they have all those good vitamins and minerals you need to grow into a big, strong boy! How do you think your dad got so big and strong?”
“Well, I don’t need the vegetables, because the fruits have minerals and vitamins – you told me that!”
“Yes, I did. But the fruit has nutritious things in it the fruit does and vice-versa. So, you’ve got to eat both.”
“Do I really have to, Mom?”
“I’ll tell you what, sweetie, if you eat at least half of both, I’ll let you pick out whatever dessert you want!”
And, just like that, the kid started eating the fruits and vegetables. Before I knew it, he was finished and eager to pick out a special dessert.
That very exchange gave me a wonderful idea. Now, it wasn’t novel – other campaigns had done it before. But, we were stuck in the polls and fundraising wasn’t anything spectacular. Plus, our volunteer base was slowly dwindling. Basically, all the death signs of a struggling campaign. We had to give it a shot, because our campaign was flailing, and frankly, no one else had any ideas.
Of course, I didn’t have any illusions, everyone jockeying for my position was more than happy to give me enough rope to hang myself. If my strategy didn’t work, I’d be out and word in this business gets around quicker than just about any other industry. Needless to say, it was a real risk to my fledgling career, and nothing to fall back on at that.
With a “success is not final, failure is not fatal,” fake it ‘til you make it attitude, I approached my candidate and his top staffers and told them the story about the mom and little boy at the cafe.
“So, what’s that got to do with the campaign?”
“Yeah, I’m not making the connection either.”
“That makes three of us, I’m afraid. Would you care to explain?”
This wasn’t unintentional. It was purposeful on my part. I knew if I went in with the strategy first, they’d be skeptical – and that was in the least. It was far more likely they’d tell me I was crazy for even suggesting such a stunt. But, presenting it with a seemingly unrelated anecdote would pique their interest and let them know I was brainstorming nonstop.
Then, I explained, “Okay, the incumbent has already staked out his position – if he takes on our approach, he’s a flip-flopper, or he admits we have the right solution, the better solution. Either way, we win, he loses. It’s one of the biggest issues in the campaign and we’ll look like problem-solvers with fresh new ideas. Meanwhile, he’ll be seen as a bump on a log – been in office all this time and still running on the same empty promises.”
“Do you really think that’s going to work?”
“I think so, because we’re proposing both approaches to the voters – a two-pronged solution with an irresistible twist. As for if it will actually work? I’m not sure, but we give it a go!”
Reluctantly, but desperate to turn things around, everyone agreed. Out of the gate, it didn’t get all that much traffic. However, after a few days, a noticeable trend began to emerge. By the end of the week, it was obvious the incumbent was now on defense. But, that wasn’t enough for my liking.
In my mind, we still needed a little extra insurance. No, not oppo research, that had long ago been done. And, our candidate being new, mudslinging wasn’t a particularly attractive option. Instead, I suggested we hit on another big issue with a different approach by forming an alliance with a third-party group. Kind of the enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy.
Although this did not get nearly as much traction, it was definitely enough to throw the incumbent into a stall. I would have preferred a tailspin right into the ground, but this was decidedly sufficient. Just less than a week before the voters went to the ballot box, our challenger candidate took a solid lead. When it was all over, we had unseated an established incumbent and I was given the credit.
Later, while moving into the office as the defeated incumbent’s team left, you’ll never guess who I ran into – the conceited, sore-loser college professor who threatened to fail me. We didn’t say a word to one another passing in the hall. But, the look on his face was priceless.
The win put me in a good position and gave my reputation a significant boost. Still, I felt like an imposter given the fact I didn’t come up with anything new. Although, I did enjoy a sense of achievement and was confident about the future. That is, until the monotony set in.
Rinse and Repeat
If you’ve never personally worked inside a political campaign, you’re not missing much. It’s a lot of grunt work, long hours, and quite a bit of repetition. In fact, events become surreal – a real-world Groundhog Day scenario. The candidate gives the same speech over and over again and when questioned, sticks to the exact same talking points.
It’s called “messaging.” A discipline that is both tedious and boring. I imagine it’s a lot like what a stand-up comedian or a music group experiences going from town to town. The only thing that’s different – besides the day of the week – is little changes are made to accommodate the audience. Cynically, it’s known as “pandering,” but that’s in the worst form possible.
I mention stand-up comics for a reason. They tailor their jokes to their crowds. And, we’re not just talking about jokes that go over well in the Northeast that don’t get a laugh in the South. Or, the other way around. I’m referring to using local places and such.
For instance, telling basically the same joke about a bridge or road, but using the name of a local span or intersection. Well, politicians do the same thing. Except, they take it a bit further. They’ll usually dress to fit in. And, they always use local examples because they’re in front of a particular constituency.
One of my clients was such a big believer in the practice, he called it “the science of retail politics.” Okay, not a new phrase, by any means. But, the way he said it with such confidence made it sound like he invented the modus operandi.
The truth is, I never knew just how it could be turned totally upside down and weaponized. But, I’m here to tell you that’s precisely what happened. Trouble was, I didn’t figure it out (nor did anyone on our team), until it was too late. It gave new meaning to the cliche “can’t see the forest for the trees.”
Yep, this little trick caught me completely off guard, even though I was now on my umpteenth campaign and had a whole lot of experience under my belt. And, I have to admit, I admire the creativity. It certainly was a sly move and one that really didn’t cost very much, just a bit of time and digital handiwork.
What can I say? It was always right there in front of me and countless races before. It’s actually quite astonishing no one thought of it before. But, our opposition did and it totally killed our campaign. We watched helplessly in utter befuddlement as some of our loyalist voters were being peeled off and us without a clue it was happening.
A Vulnerability Hiding in Plain Sight
As I clearly recall, the race was in full swing. We held a comfortable lead as the incumbent. Here’s a fun fact for anyone thinking about running for public office – you, as the challenger, don’t stand much of a chance. In fact, statistically speaking, you only have about a ten percent chance of winning. That’s right, incumbents enjoy a whopping 90-plus percent advantage. Meaning, the current officeholder is reelected over ninety percent of the time.
You’re probably curious about why this is the case. Actually, it’s not complicated whatsoever. Incumbents enjoy a number of advantages. First and foremost is name recognition. Second, they already have established donor relations. Third, they know the campaign finance rules and election culture – two big-time benefits.
Then, there are other pluses. For instance, having familiar staff and eager volunteers, along with the know-how to get low-propensity voters to the polls or hand in their absentee or mail ballots. Those unenthusiastic, procrastinators can really add to the tallies. Additionally, other things like franking privileges (I’ll let you look that last one up. But, it basically means being able to send mail without prepaid postage, which helps to explain why your mailbox is overstuffed on a daily basis every election cycle.)
I could keep going, because this isn’t a comprehensive list. There are plenty more advantages incumbents have over challengers. These and additional benefits make for nearly insurmountable odds. However, these certainly do not guarantee reelection, though the prospect is typically highly likely.
Regardless, now you have a much better idea of why people run for seats in the first place. If potential candidates know the numbers and facts, they also know that there is literally less than a one out of ten chance they’ll lose in future races – that’s a pretty strong prospect and a huge motivator.
But, here’s the danger. With such low turnover, it’s easy for incumbents to become complacent. Usually, this apathetic attitude begins to set in after a few terms in office. Seat holders don’t have to expend nearly as much time and energy, but their challengers must run themselves ragged to even make a dent.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. After all, it’s not an unalterable state of affairs. Sometimes, challengers tap into a dynamic, a sentiment, that can help them break out and lead a movement of the discontent. Voters who are either open to a change or have outright soured.
By the way, this is the vast majority of the ten percent of challengers who ultimately go on to beat incumbents. I would put it very high, probably ninety-eight percent. These challengers identify unsolved problems and tap into constituent disappointment.
Now, there’s also the occasional instance of scandal. I’d say that would constitute about one percent of challenger victories. Situations where public trust was betrayed and voters just want the offender out as quickly as possible. Sometimes, these result in special elections. But, it’s still a very small percentage.
So, if you’ve been following the arithmetic, that leaves just one percent of challenger wins against incumbents. Personally, I think it’s probably a fraction of one percent, but for the sake of demonstration, let’s stick with a whole number.
Although a tiny percentage, it represents some very valuable lessons. And, it’s exactly what we experienced in an uncanny campaign that unfolded in the most unpredictable way. Not one person on our team saw it coming and once we figured out what was going on, it was simply way too late.
In this particular instance, our opponent came up with a savvy, unique strategy, by identifying a vulnerability that was hiding in plain sight. The challenger did something remarkably simple. Something that did not tap into constituent discontent or exploit an impropriety. Nope. Instead, the upstart just strategically repeated the incumbent, effectively using our candidate’s own words again him.
You know, looking back, I should have been suspicious. The challenger held relatively few rallies and by all anecdotal accounts, did very little in the way of on-the-ground, grassroots canvassing.
Meanwhile, we were holding big events and taking full advantage of the franking privilege, sending out all kinds of mail. Also, constantly pushing our platform through every digital channel available in any way we could. Plus, we had a huge door-to-door presence, speaking with individuals and families alike, one-on-one, face-to-face.
We even took on more paid staff, a few familiar faces who previously joined the team in the last election cycle as volunteers, including the stereotypical broke college student who probably wouldn’t have stuck around had it not been for the pay.
In sharp contrast, our challenger didn’t have much of a media presence – things like internet, television, radio, and social media ads. Now, this wasn’t particularly strange by itself because he was running on a shoestring budget, not having a large campaign coffer as we did. Naturally, the absence of such messaging wasn’t surprising. In fact, it only seemed to confirm his small budget.
Turns out, none of this was due to anything we had instinctively attributed it to – not at all, in the least. But, I’ll get into a more detailed explanation later. For now, I’ll lay out a basic account of what was happening in real-time by hitting on the most important moments of the race.
As I said, it all started with a very clever observation, exploiting a vulnerability in our campaign that was hidden in plain sight.
If you think back, I previously spoke about rising and repeating. The candidate gives the same speech over and over again and when questioned, sticks to the exact same talking points.
Now, although this is completely normal, it presents a prime opportunity for an enterprising challenger who often comes into the race with a lot of energy, different ideas, and a sizeable portion of impromptu performances. In other words, it’s not carefully crafted and pre-planned. To put it more bluntly, having aptly rehearsed talking points and events that are – for the lack of a better description – staged.
This is a common criticism of outsiders who’ve never had to run a campaign before. They mistakenly believe that candidates should be genuine and nothing should be scripted. But, that’s generally a recipe for disaster because it’s all too easy to get off message, and when speaking extemporaneously, fall into the old Kinsley gaffe trap. (A phenomenon given its eponymous name by Michael Kinsley who once observed, “A gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.”)
This brings us to the challenger’s shrewd tactic. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it devious or even unscrupulous, but it was unconventional handiwork, to say the least. And, it began in what seemed like an innocuous instance.
Can’t Win for Losing
The ebb and flow of a political race has its own haphazard pace. While that sounds contradictory, anyone who has worked on a campaign can relate. It’s kind of like riding a roller coaster. It begins with a fast launch, then winds around, followed by an exciting conclusion.
It was that very familiarity that helped to cloak our opponent’s strategy. As usual, we opened the race with a big lead. Our candidate being the incumbent, this wasn’t at all surprising. We fully anticipated starting the race way ahead and the challenger having to struggle just to gain any real traction.
That happened, as predicted.
As the race got fully underway, we went about our customary business and maintained a healthy advantage for the first and second leg of the race. As we entered the third, we began to detect something unusual. Our biggest donors were pulling back.
However, at that juncture in the race, this wasn’t alarming because we were way out front and were already considering spending less this cycle to save for the next. This is standard practice and a responsible one at that. What we didn’t spend this time around, we could use later on.
Then, another anomaly. Political allies were distancing themselves in very subtle ways. Since none of our positions had changed, this was conspicuous. It irked our candidate, but we put it down to them taking a more centered stance – also not that out of the ordinary.
Thereafter, attendance at our events steadily began to drop. Here again, not really a red flag. Crowds tend to thin toward the end a bit when there’s a big win expected and then swell to their largest on the days and nights before election day.
However, in politics, there are no coincidences. The challenger was consistently rising in the polls, though his media spending barely changed at all. What was even more perplexing was he wasn’t attracting big crowds. In fact, he hardly held any events at all. Nevertheless, he gained by leaps in bounds in every reputable survey. Simultaneously, we were falling.
We tried to counteract the phenomenon, but no matter what we did, it didn’t work. By the last stretch, our incumbent candidate maintained a lead, but it continued to shrink – all without any self-evident, plausible explanation.
Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Most mysteriously of all, a new dynamic emerged in the last portion of the race in our favor. Though our challenger had undeniably gained momentum, it appeared to have stalled. So much, it kept him at least two points out of the M.O.E. on L.V.s. (To the layperson, those are the margin of error – which is usually about two to three points, and Likely Voters – people who actually cast ballots.)
Having a clear edge, we ramped up our last get-out-the-vote efforts and doubled down on our media buys. If the challenger couldn’t break into the M.O.E. or surpass our incumbent in the polls among L.V.s, we’d come away with another win.
However, we didn’t experience much of a bump and with election day looming, that wasn’t too concerning, since we were still demonstrably ahead in every measure thus far. We had outperformed the challenger’s fundraising (which honestly wasn’t impressive by any means), maintained our lead in the polls, and attracted the largest crowds at all of the events held during the race.
All of these were indisputable indicators of a coming victory. And, as in the past, our last two rallies were a success, though the crowd sizes and enthusiasm left something to be desired. We just didn’t have that feeling of mojo we enjoyed earlier in the race. Something was awry and none of us could put a finger on it.
Regardless, the press had already drawn its conclusions – the incumbent, our candidate – was cruising to yet another reelection. The reports coming out of media sources were all on the same proverbial page. Along with everything else we witnessed, and from past experiences, it was a self-fulling prophecy and one we were eager to embrace with glee.
We were in good spirits on Tuesday morning and the afternoon just flew by. But, as the clock ticked into the late afternoon and into the early evening, some of the numbers began to trickle in, revealing higher voter turnout in just about every precinct. That sent a chill through our campaign.
But, when the ballot counting and precinct reporting started, we felt a sense of relief. Initially, it was good news. The polls were confirming their predictions. Yet another good sign was the fact we had siphoned off a decent amount of votes from unfriendly districts. What’s more – there were a significant number of stations that had not yet closed their doors. And the majority of those were in quite favorable territories, locations that had delivered for our incumbent in the past.
Bolstered by this realization, I breathed a sigh of relief, then happily shared my optimism with the team and our candidate. So, we immediately started to prepare, tweaking the planned celebration in the venue and rehearsing how the rest of the night would play out – including some last-minute changes to the victory speech.
Everything appeared to be falling into place as the friendly polling locations closed and had begun counting. At this point, we were in a good position and started to project a tentative margin of victory. Even under lackluster circumstances, we’d enjoy a solid win and that was enough.
When the first batch of numbers came in, cheers erupted. The team was elated and in high spirits. But, I noticed a tiny anomaly. So, I quickly retrieved the figures from the last election cycle. We were down from those totals, though only by a small margin. Then, the next wave of counts was decidedly more worrisome.
These were among our lean-to districts. That meant when faced with a binary choice, the majority of people would cast a ballot for our candidate over the opposition. Surprisingly, that wasn’t coming to fruition. Still, I kept my skepticism to myself, hoping it wasn’t indicative of subsequent results.
As the next reporting hit, I could clearly see a subtle but consistent pattern emerging and it spelled trouble with a capital “T.” If it kept going this way, we’d lose the lead in short order and the entire race would be turned upside down. I felt an ominous sense creep over me once the next precinct reported – my suspicion was indeed real.
By this time, even though I’d not said a word to anyone else, others started to catch on to what was unmistakably unfolding right before our eyes. The enthusiasm disappeared in an instant, replaced by widespread dread and somber disbelief. After all, these were the most favorable territories, and our opponent had not only clearly made inroads, but was flipping those districts one by one.
In a state of utter panic, I ran the numbers – the results were nothing short of disastrous. We were well on our way to a humiliating defeat with no way of stopping it. Every ensuing count put us further down. In just moments, we went from declaring victory to reluctantly preparing for an inevitable concession speech.
The Post-Mortem
The challenger’s victory speech did not provide any insight into what happened. In fact, it was altogether absent of strategy details or otherwise. Moreover, he didn’t double down on any particular policies – something that’s quite normal for a winner to do. Also, conspicuous by its absence was the lack of initiative. It was baffling and I’d only begin to understand why in the days that followed.
My first clue (though I didn’t recognize it at the time) was the quick exit of a few staffers. People who work so hard just to watch something go oh-so-wrong can immediately lose any semblance of their why and question their own worth. That is to say, if they contributed anything positive at all or were part of the blame.
Speaking of blame, I really wanted to know how this happened. Nothing gave us a heads-up going into election day that we were about to suffer an unfathomable loss. Still, I wasn’t about to give up my quest to get to the bottom of the matter. I was determined to piece the puzzle together because it could very well give me valuable insight into how to avoid such a scenario in the future.
Of course, the polls were useless. They didn’t tell me anything other than they were wildly inaccurate. Our fundraising was solid, so that wasn’t a problem, either. Attendance at our events was solid, which also didn’t make for a viable suspect. What’s more, our media spend reach was – by all accounts – successful. And, our outreach, including low-propensity voter targeting, margin voters, and the like, were unprecedented.
Exhausting all external factors, I turned to possible internal problems where something, somewhere must have gone totally awry. After all, if it wasn’t any of those other things, the culprit had to be elsewhere and this was the only place left to look for plausible answers. But, nothing stood out when I went through every nook and cranny. We carefully crafted and executed a well-run campaign. So, that turned out to be a dead end.
Then, I caught a break. While speaking with a local news reporter off the record, he said something that struck me as odd. He mentioned how impressed he was with our broke college student staffer’s work ethic. When I asked why, the answer I got set off alarm bells.
The correspondent, who covered a number of our rallies – as well as those of our opponent – told me he noticed this particular staffer subtly took copious notes. At first, I thought it was merely some type of self-interested maneuver to ingratiate himself with the candidate and the staff alike. That’s what too many years in politics will do to you.
But then, it occurred to me this was the same individual who volunteered to clandestinely gather any information he could from our challenger’s public events and private meetings with constituents and donors – the latter, when possible.
There’s really nothing out of the ordinary about that tactic, by the way. It’s perfectly normal for campaign operatives to sign up for newsletters, follow everything on social media, and get as much in-person exposure to the opponent as possible. It’s just smart to know everything that’s going on.
What made this comment from the report so out of place was the fact he said this staffer was taking notes. When I asked myself why, I couldn’t come up with a good answer. Puzzling over it didn’t help much. That is, until I suddenly remembered this new staffer was privy to quite a few private events.
He was there for all the special interest and donor palm-pressing when the public wasn’t present. And, he was always buried in his phone, not paying attention to what was going on – just scrolling, tap-tap-tapping, and smiling – usually in a corner or in an empty part of a room.
But, he never held his phone up. I never once saw him take a video or even snap a picture. So, I knew he wasn’t visually recording anything at all. Instead, he spend the entire time by himself, scrolling, tap-tap-tapping, and smiling – over and over again.
This childish behavior bothered me in a way I can’t even begin to describe. He acted more like a twelve-year-old girl with a crush, furiously chatting with her B-F-Fs inside a closed-off, little clique, than a college student. It was immature and always made me regret bringing him on the staff. Regardless, I just wrote it off as being par for the course for his age group.
Then, I started thinking a bit more about it. I asked myself why he did this all the time – especially during those exclusive events – places where the opposition would give practically anything to be a fly on the wall.
I thought to myself, “I mean, they’d absolutely love to have firsthand access to what was said, all those behind-closed-door arrangements and promises. Yes indeed, the challenger would pay good money to have that kind of inside information!”
The phrase “pay good money” repeated in my head time and time again as I thought back to all those meetings, trying to remember as many details as I could, attempting to connect the dots. But, I needed a little help. So I reached out to my two best people and their observations told me everything I needed to know to reassure me I was on the right track.
Wanting to prove my emerging theory, I took a stab in the dark and reached out to my counterpart on the other side of the race. A strategist with a long track record of coming up short but one the challenger could afford to pay with his lackluster fundraising. Of course, I got a snide answer, but one that spoke volumes because he specifically mentioned, “…the science of retail politics.”
There it was. We had been done in by our own playbook. The staffer in question wasn’t texting friends, he was – as the reporter observed, “…taking copious notes.” And, was showing those very same notes to anyone and everyone that supported our incumbent. In short, this kid made sure everyone knew the extent of the incumbent’s duplicity. So he single-handedly took down our campaign from the inside by exposing every self-rewarding deal we’d made.
That explained why our opponent barely campaigned. Why the challenger didn’t do everything he could to fundraise and grow his grass-roots support. Now, it all made perfect sense. While our candidate was promising one group this and the other that, they’d subsequently learn about the quid pro quo bargains and come election day, dealt us what they understandably felt we deserved for our duplicity.
I had another acquaintance cash in a favor and do a little investigative digging into this individual. And though I can’t prove it, I remained convinced he was a mole. One who was probably hired through a cut-out by the opposition to infiltrate our organization and expose all our dealmaking.
So, we actually paid this individual to infiltrate and sabotage our campaign from the inside. And, since I was in charge of the entire race, the candidate placed the blame squarely on my shoulders – so much for the so-called “science of retail politics.”
