2014 Political Campaigns/Politics Thread: Even number years = $$$

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > 2014 Political Campaigns/Politics Thread: Even number years = $$$

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

tbp posted:

He was only a year or so younger than me so as long as he gave me passable numbers I really didn't give a poo poo lol but it was funny when he lit up I started cracking up I was like dude I don't really care if you smoke but I am technically your boss

In my experience most people on campaigns smoke and no one at all cares but yes behind closed doors and not weed in the office.

Anyway I'm on like my 9th race in field I can help answer whatever and/or join any suicide pacts. Field Director on a statewide race for 14. 2014, another year another declaration this will be my last cycle.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 08:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 18:14

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

And every race has volunteers/family members/god for bid candidates who think there are never enough signs. Also if you win it is proof lawn signs work. If you lose, it was because there were not enough signs. Signs. Signs! Signs!!!

# ¿ Jan 30, 2014 14:25

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

The not so idealistic advice: Figure out how you're going to fund your campaign, regardless of level. Are you rich? If not, is there a career path that you could see yourself making lots of money in quickly? Do you have connections to people who are rich and will donate to you? If not, make them. If you're not rich and want to run for anything above local level be prepared to spend enormous amounts of time asking for money.

As far as background, law is the most common, but it varies a lot. Yes some people make their way in by working on campaigns first, though it isn't that common. If you're thinking of starting on the city level it is useful to start getting your face out there, making connections.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2014 15:43

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Campaign finance laws should be dramatically reformed. This would probably not be good for me from a personal perspective. It is incredibly unlikely to happen anytime soon.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 15:10

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Slaan posted:

When a campaign is finished, what typically happens in the month or so afterwards? Does the campaign get rid of most people not needed to finish sending off checks for services/ads/workers, or is it more of a gradual wind down?

Field and low level positions will be typically be done within the week of election day. Close down the offices and throw out stuff and you're done. Finance people often stay on a bit longer to tie stuff up. Campaign managers have a bit more to wrap up, too. Usually everyone is done or perhaps finance people on a part time basis after a few weeks.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2014 14:54

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Truecon420 posted:

Any advice on getting an intern? I work for a local campaign and we've had trouble "recruiting" without straight up deceiving the teens.

Go to every local college and high school,send fliers to government teachers, talk to your dem/gop clubs, talk about how it is a great way to learn about politics, get involved, build your resume, blahblah. Have them make lots of phone calls.

quote:

How can I find places to volunteer for 2014 in my area? I live in western Massachusetts

Do you support any of the governors candidates? Or LG candidates? Any competitive congressionals around? I can't really tell you without knowing where you are but find any candidate you like who would be on your ballot, google them, email or call them and say you want to help. Say you want to make lots of phone calls. If they don't have you coming in within a week, they suck. Shouldn't be too hard.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 14:00

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Ofaloaf posted:

During the first introductory day of work, everybody really emphasized the chain of command. What if our direct boss is already breaking into fits of nervous giggling and we still haven't found anyone who will tell us straight what our pay is? What's the best way to actually break the chain of command?

What if 3/4 of a county's FOs are this far away from mutiny already

Disaster field program spotted

# ¿ May 21, 2014 14:13

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Xanderg posted:

Looking for some advice here; I'm wondering if it's in my best interests to go in as an FO or just hold out for an RFD position? I've worked two special elections as an FO, oversaw interns and volunteers for a municipal, and worked an issue based campaign most recently at a quasi-FO/RFD hybrid level.

All of my friends and former colleagues tell me I should go in as an RFD, I feel confident in my ability to be an RFD. I've had a few interviews but no luck so far, I think a lot of that is because I haven't worked a campaign more than 3 months which makes it hard for anyone to want to hire me. I just feel like having FO over and over again on my resume is a red flag and I won't feel like I made any progress in the past two years honestly.

Absolutely go for RFD. 2014 cycle, there will be (and are) a bunch of positions. 3 months doesn't matter at all, i've had bigger gaps multiple times. Campaign people get it. And having FO over and over again is the reddest of red flags, generally. Also, if you don't move up this cycle, 2015 is going to be real tough, but if you rfd this year, you're probably in good position to find a virginia or new jersey FD job in 15 or maybe even land a FD on a congressional special if you get lucky. (Or, head to Iowa/New Hampshire)

You could also chase some FD jobs, at a congressional or lower level, but your resume sounds pretty spot on for a statewide RFD, and i'd encourage that over a FD job unless its congressional.

# ¿ May 21, 2014 20:19

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Xanderg posted:

Thanks for the reassurance. I've had a few interviews but they haven't panned out to anything so far and I've also been getting nervous since a lot of the top campaigns seem to have staffed up. What about partner groups? Would taking an RFD position with something like Planned Parenthood or the League of Conservation Voters be a good idea or should I still exclusively to electoral campaigns?

Depends on what you want to do, what the options are, etc. It is definitely worth considering. If your goal is to continue in electoral campaigns, you're probably better off staying electoral (though it pretty much varies and depends more on the contacts you make than anything else). Some issue groups are going to have the significant perk of not being cycle jobs, ie you're not looking for work again soon. I'd certainly say go ahead and apply for those too and see what you can get.

# ¿ May 21, 2014 22:33

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Ofaloaf posted:

There's no primaries that we have to be concerned about, and primarily all we seem to be doing is phone banking to build up volunteers. We're not even doing that good a job of it- the paper lists have a depressingly low rate of return, and nobody seems to've bothered properly stocking VB. Wouldn't it be more useful for us to physically go out and attend local party meetings, and just try to get people from those face-to-face contacts in groups we know are already interested in seeing us succeed?

Or just something, goddamn anything else. Thus far it all seems less organized than it ought to be, no one's ready to say anything about pay, and they're trying to retain us by keeping us occupied in a holding pattern of busywork calls to numbers that don't answer.

1. it sounds like your campaign is a shitshow
2. the "busywork calls" are what actually works, local party meetings are mostly a waste of time
3. But, it sounds like they havent actually explained any of this to you or the logic and way field works, which, #1

# ¿ May 22, 2014 18:59

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Ofaloaf posted:

Yesterday I got one (1) scheduled volunteer out of ten or so hours of calling, and out of something like 14 contacts total and about 300 dials. I (or any other FO) could've gotten one volunteer from attending one of the party meetings going on last night, and it wouldn't have taken 10 hours or cost the party 10 hours' worth of wages.

Contact rates often aren't great but thats shockingly low if accurate. I'd be hard pressed to find a way to do that unless a universe has been run into the ground beyond any possibility at this stage of the campaign.

# ¿ May 22, 2014 21:21

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Jackson Taus posted:

Not sure at what point this becomes a necro, but what are folks impressions with using an auto-dialer for persuasion calls? I've seen it used effectively with GOTV, but it seems a lot less effective with persuasion - yeah you're getting more contacts, but because it's coming from an out-of-district number and there's a delay when they pick up that makes it sound like you're a telemarketer, they basically hate you before you've gotten two words out. Has anyone had similar experiences or better ones?

There isn't any reason it has to be an out-of-district number, most dialers let you set the caller ID number to whatever you want. There is slight loss on quality with a dialer but the quantity increase is well worth it. My favorite is hubdialer, for what it is worth.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2014 21:32

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Mooseontheloose posted:

The only problem with auto dialers is that there is a pause so you will lose a lot of people who think you are a telemarketer. Plus, you won't have names unlike a votebuilder list. However, it will eventually weed out bad numbers and it will let you open up your universe a bit.

Just make sure that you train people REALLY WELL on hubdialer/autodialer/jetdial. You need a bunch of well trained folks for it to work the right way.

edit: Also, it's not necroing the thread since I imagine there will be more questions the closer we get to E-Day!

If you use the computer enabled version you can have names. (And votebuilder actually has a predictive dialer in it, though I think it is kind of crap). The pause is really the only drawback.

And yes, training is really important on it. But once people get used to it they love it, especially if you've hit your universe enough that contact rates are real bad dialing manually.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2014 23:37

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

I've never noticed the pause causing that much of an issue, and i've been on campaigns doing hundreds of thousands of calls on predictives. You'll lose a few people who hang up quickly, but other than that if the callers are trained well it should be fine.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2014 15:15

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

CobwebMustardseed posted:

This is the exact opposite of my experience. If only a few people are using the system, it will be slow and laggy. The more people on it, the better it works (because it can dial more numbers at once and have more people available to receive calls). When you get a good 20 or 30 people on it, it'll be humming.

20-30 is optimal, very large would be double or triple that.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2014 03:05

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

the eternal fight of local committees/etc who think events and visibility are a thing that matter versus campaigns who rightfully care about direct voter contact will never end.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2014 14:27

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Yeah in even years if you're a recent college grad who isn't picky about location, you will have no issue finding a field organizer job.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2014 17:22

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Assuming you're using a DNC turnout score or clarity or something like that, 70-100 is going to be likely voters who are mostly good targets if you're doing hard persuasion (think targeting swing voters who are very likely to vote), 40-70 is good for targeting base democrats you want to GOTV. In either case you should use a support/party score if available to create the appropriate universe of voters within that turnout range. Can vary some by race, but those are the typical cutoffs.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2014 14:21

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

There is not enough alcohol in the world to cover the next week.

I have nothing further to add.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2014 18:44

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

It's gotv, yall

# ¿ Nov 1, 2014 01:51

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Funemployment!

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 07:18

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Dem messaging was non-existant, this sums it up well:

quote:

What, besides raising the minimum wage, do the Democrats propose to do about the shift in income from wages to profits, from labor to capital, from the 99 percent to the 1 percent? How do they deliver for an embattled middle class in a globalized, de-unionized, far-from-full-employment economy, where workers have lost the power they once wielded to ensure a more equitable distribution of income and wealth? What Democrat, besides Elizabeth Warren, campaigned this year to diminish the sway of the banks? Who proposed policies that would give workers the power to win more stable employment and higher incomes, not just at the level of the minimum wage but across the economic spectrum?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120164/republicans-won-senate-because-democrats-forgot-2012-message

If you need to frame it that populist is debatable, but the basic issue is that in the face of economic anxiety and wage stagnation the Democratic messaging in 2014 was small time, at best. The Republican message is wrong, but they have a broad one about cutting taxes, cutting government spending, big government, etc. Raising the minimum wage is popular (as seen by the ballot initatives), but it isn't a message, its a piece of a broader economic message that for the most part didn't exist.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 17:33

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Jackson Taus posted:

Right now there's an oversupply of folks who are politically passionate enough to work lovely hours for crap pay in the field.

On what planet is this true? During off years, yeah, but in even years every campaign I know of is practically begging people to FO and will basically take warm bodies

quote:

But if you're talking about doubling or tripling the number of FOs, you'll have a hard time doing that and still getting folks who'll be eager to pull 80 hour weeks and passionate enough about the cause to really sell it well. FOs who are from the same region and whose passion shines through in what they do are great, but there's not enough of them and down that slope lies $10/hour paid door-knockers who don't give a poo poo. If you want to talk about connecting on values and showing their passion, you're going to find a lot more of that in volunteers than in many paid canvassers.

I'd question the model that we currently have where people are expected to work such long hours for such low pay. Most of the hours are unneccessary at best, every fo spends a bunch of the morning and afternoon not doing much. And the money exists to pay more.

Volunteers may be more passionate than a typical paid canvasser, but that doesn't mean their values or the volunteer themselves neccessarily are the right ones to connect to the voters they're talking to. Democratic campaign volunteers tend to be a lot whiter, and a lot richer, than the average Democratic voter that you're trying to GOTV, or the swing voter you're trying to persuade. It is a simple matter of who can afford to volunteer their time. There is no reason why someone can't care about the candidate or cause and also be paid.

quote:

Also, while it might be the case that statewides have the budget to move extra hundreds of thousands or millions into field, 95% of the races in this country don't. A state legislative race can't do that, and many Congressional races probably can't do that very easily. Not that we necessarily need to have the same campaign structure for US Senator and Board of Supervisors, but I don't think you can easily write off volunteer labor.

State leg and congressional races are actually the best examples of where a paid canvass sort of operation will often be more productive than a solely volunteer focused field operation. They lack the volunteer capacity to merit the sort of FO model that is often used. It really isn't that expensive, and highly targeted races at least do have the money.

The main issue is there needs to be much more adaptation regarding the type of field models used. There is no reason to think the fairly standarized 80~ hour 7 day a week field organizer model that is built around FOs creating and building a volunteer base is the most effective form of field on all races. I don't think you "write off" volunteer labor so to speak, most races probably need a hybrid, but the degree to which people within field prize volunteer voter contact over paid voter contact may be preventing more effective field programs.

G-Hawk fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 2, 2014

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 23:54

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

tsa posted:

No reason to pay people willing to work for free unless you need more people than there are volunteers or if paying them produces a better result than using the money towards other goals. Usually for the low skill stuff at the bottom it doesn't.

Most campaigns need more people than there are volunteers, and paying them can certainly produce a better result. Calling persuasion low level skill dismisses recent research suggesting that the degree to which quality of the contact matters is much more than previously thought. The amount of training you need to invest in someone to get them to be really good at it is very difficult to do in the typical low time commitment volunteer while also producing enough actual time spent on contacts. Modern voter contact has been studied enough that higher quality voter contact is worth the money.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 20:16

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Jackson Taus posted:

Maybe Virginia has a surplus of staffers living here because we've got elections every year and we're right next to DC. But an oversupply of recent college grads willing to work long hours is one of the explanations for why campaigns get away with paying jack-poo poo to staffers.

Virginia has more than most but i've worked there before and everyone was still scrambling for FOs. FO pay has actually been rising the last 3-4 cycles, the 2k/month days are mostly gone.

quote:

Yeah, if it was prioritized we could definitely reduce the stress on FOs without seriously impacting campaign quality. Cutting out those hour-long nightly circlejerk-calls would probably be a good start.

Reducing the stress would increase the quality of work and lead to more potential employees. You're right, I don't run conference calls outside of rare occasions for that reason.

quote:

This is a good point I hadn't considered, but to a large degree paid staff has a similar problem - they're disproportionately recent college grads.

That's not what I'm saying, but I'm suggesting there aren't enough folks out there who are passionate and looking for a field job to fill 2-4x as many field slots. If right now we're "basically tak[ing] warm bodies" where are these additional passionate paid-folks gonna come from? Unless you're suggesting just mostly paid-time folks who work evenings mostly or something, that could work.

In the current model you're right, what I'd suggest is something closer to a normal work week in terms of hours. The old 7 day a week 9 to 9 model is not the only option. You could pay people livable wages for something more like 6 days a week and 40-50 hours a week and you're gonna have a lot more people who want the job and they're going to be a lot less rich and white recent college grads. Reducing hours actually increases productivity, like any job in the world if you over work yourself your quality and motivation drops.

I speak from experience here, I've managed a good amount of FOs(and organized myself) and they probably work 20+ hours a week less than average FOs and get more done. That isn't to say there is a one size fits all model, there isn't, but the current way the democratic party collectively does field is incredibly short sighted, impractical, and inefficient. Its a campaign culture issue too, where many people did that FO model and see it as being more dedicated or harder working to be in an office until midnight when it really isn't helpful 99% of the time.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 22:45

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Mayorals, Special Elections, Canada(lol)

# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 00:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 18:14

G-Hawk: Dec 15, 2003

Can we update the thread title to Odd number years = Despair

# ¿ Feb 23, 2015 07:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > 2014 Political Campaigns/Politics Thread: Even number years = $$$