Sam Seaborn's Instanalysis

Our old friend Sam Seaborn made this insightful comment that I thought deserved fuller play:

Special elections are won on the ground.

Why is Campbell winning? (Apart from his broader-based support)? He had (by far) the best mail program. Not pieces. Program. And in the absence of a real ground game, mail is best for multi-candidate primaries. (Yes, better than TV).

No matter the final outcome, I'd be willing to wager there are more registered voters in the district whose first choice would have been Brewer, Gilchrist, or Young had they voted than there were votes cast for John Campbell.

But those folks didn't vote. Why? Because Brewer spent her money where her consultants would stand to take a cut -- mail and TV. Because Gilchrist employed the same media strategy that did his Minuteman Project -- and didn't actually bother, you know, counting and turning out votes.

Comments

I concur, Sam. Low turnout elections are all about the field efforts. How many supporters does a TV ad find (even geographically targeted cable buys)? Or a radio ad on KFI that is heard by thousands, but only a handful in the 48th.
This kind of election is all about identifying your supporters, and getting them to vote - early voting, absentee, or election day.
All the glamorous advertising and glossy mailers money can buy don't find you more voters to turnout.