Nobody wants to know the cause of death.
I had just started my own business in 1999 and was super excited to be what they call an entrepreneur.
My basement office was furnished with the latest plastic furniture from Office Depot, you could still smell the ink on my freshly-printed business cards, and when my toddler decided to stop yelling, I could actually hold a professional-grade conversation.
I had only one problem: No clients.
But then, out of nowhere, the local legislative caucus came calling. They’d just suffered through an election debacle and were struggling to find some answers. At the time, I was an opposition researcher with a graduate school background in research and analysis so I signed up in a heartbeat.
Other than massively undercharging for the project (I see you, first-time consultants), the project was a dream. I did a deep dive into all the races, interviewing all the campaign managers and candidates, reviewing the polling, analyzing the direct mail, and taking a 360-degree look at what worked and what didn’t.
While the intervening years have shown me that some of my conclusions were a bit rigid (You don’t always have to use the polling language word-for-word), I was proud of the final product and I think it played at least a small role in the caucus returning to its winning ways in future cycles.
Excited that I’d found my golden ticket to consulting riches, I proceeded to spend the next several years trying to sell this concept to other Democratic caucuses and state parties around the country: Hire me to diagnose what worked and what didn’t and you can make evidence-based decisions to improve your operations.
Total number of sales: 0.
This experience taught me something valuable that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately during the dustup over the DNC “autopsy” of 2024. Most people in Democratic politics have no interest in learning from the past — because they don’t have to — so we have no infrastructure to do so.
One caveat: There is a community of researchers that look at discrete parts of the Democratic world — does this particular TV ad work, what’s the best way to use direct mail to increase turnout, etc. — but there’s almost no attention to the system as a whole. There’s literally no interest in answering the big question: How can Democrats spend over $6 billion and lose to the worst person on Earth? Twice!?
Regular readers of this newsletter (I’m looking at you, Cuz) will be familiar with the reason for this lack of interest. As the O’Jays once observed, “Money, Money, Money.”
There is so much cash sloshing around the system — cozy deals between consultants and wealthy PAC-runners mint millionaires eight days a week — that there’s no interest in developing a professional, research-based approach to Democratic campaigning.
Which is a shame since it wouldn’t be all that complicated (or expensive) to build a campaign analysis structure.
There are plenty of qualified researchers and analysts out there who would love to apply their skills to pulling America back from the brink. Create a methodology that combines quantitative research (turnout by precinct, differences between voter groups, etc.), qualitative (such as interviews with managers, candidates, consultants, and donors) and maybe even a sprinkling of AI research (analyzing social media conversations, for example) and you’re off to a good start. A couple donors, an organization or two that’s not ashamed to learn from its mistakes, and all of a sudden you start building an accountable, transparent, campaign infrastructure.
And that’s where some see danger instead of opportunity.
Because if Democratic campaigns finally decide to lift up the hood, it’s going to become very clear that there are some urgent repairs necessary. Which would jeopardize the revenue streams of a whole bunch of well-connected consultants who like things just the way they are, thank you very much. Better to just keep driving this thing ‘til it breaks down.
That’s why Democratic campaigns still spend on broadcast TV like it’s 1988, we still develop our “message” using polling questions devised by a bunch of political junkies, and the Peter Principle remains a valid career path. And that’s why you’re hearing so many variations of “Nothing to see here” by people in the Democratic consulting community.
That car just crashed itself. Inexplicable.
I’m not here to render judgment on what should happen next at the DNC since I’m not much for meetings, much less committees.
But I am 100% certain that the discourse around the DNC “autopsy” is ignoring the real problem with Democratic campaigning. We don’t have any legitimate way to learn from the past and get better because we don’t want one.
Too much money involved.
Cause of Death: Unknown.