Friday, April 28, 2006


I Just Realized

It came to me in a burst of logical clarity. Thank you, Jay/Mr. Ziegler, for affording me this clarity.

The post below this one and the comment to which it refers describe an ad hominem attack against .... me? I think. Break it down. From Wikipedia:

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

  1. A makes claim X.
  2. There is something objectionable about A.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.
In our particular case here, replace A with "I, MNCR", X with "anything perceived as favoring Steve Kelley or denigrating to Becky Lourey," and you've got it made.

1. I make a claim that {Lourey's numbers are off, their digs against his non-public campaign staff are uncalled for}
2. I am a former campaign staffer
3. Therefore my claim is false.

While I've been writing this, I got a comment from dflmnjim, which is insightful and worth discussing.
Personally, I think the issue of campaign team experience is a debatable issue. We are all running against a very good candidate and cmapaign team (Pawlenty that is) and we need to have our best to match theirs. Hatch clearly has put together the best team and is doing so while spending minimally. While Kelley's folks work just as hard and are learning the ropes quickly, I think Barisonzi points to something that needs attention; that Kelley hired people without experience working at this level. He didn't call them jerks, or lazy, or bad at their jobs, he just said inexperience shows when trying to count delegates.

The facts of what he wrote have not been challenged by anyone, and I think that says a lot about them probobly being true. Can Kelley people refute any of the actual facts in the email?
Hatch may have a great team - Honestly, I've only met two of his campaign staffers (Hi Ken :-) ). I can't really speak to that.

I'm curious, though, as to these "facts" you refer to. Do you mean this?
  1. Early voter identification: Through both paid and volunteer phone banks, the Lourey campaign developed a baseline of support for each candidate.
  2. Direct contact: Campaign and volunteer staff attended every convention and tracked all sub-caucuses - candidate, issue and undeclared � and engaging in direct delegate contact. They tracked how sub-caucuses merged, and who were elected delegates. By comparing the results with voter identification calls, the Lourey campaign is able to identify potential delegate fluidity.
  3. Direct phone contact: Senator Lourey, surrogates, volunteer supporters and campaign staff call delegates to confirm candidate preference. Calls are made and information entered into the database from over 10 locations around the state every night.
  4. Secondary sources: Delegate lists are regularly cross checked against other candidate�s reported donor and published supporter lists.
These aren't facts - these are things that every campaign is doing. These are activities. Maybe you're referring to this?
  1. Assuming Support: Counting a person as a �hard� delegate based upon a public declaration of support is a three fold mistake. First, it will always tilt the count toward the campaign collecting the data. Good campaigns want comparative data, which public declarations of support simply do not provide. Second, there are many reasons a campaign might be provided inaccurate information. Because of friendships or loyalties, the choice of the delegate is often kept private for good reason. Lastly, people change their minds. For example, in its recent email the Kelley campaign quotes Arlene Pierce of Lake of the Woods and identifies her as a Steve Kelley delegate. She is not. As of this morning, she is a committed Becky Lourey delegate.
These are good points, but they do not establish, in and of themselves, the superiority of the Lourey campaign's methods or results. Maybe Arlene Pierce did say she was a committed Kelley delegate, and then later a committed Becky Lourey delegate. At best that means she should be entered on both campaigns' lists as "undecided" - clearly she likes both candidates for different reasons.

Keep it coming, folks. On a totally unrelated note, watch out for an interview tonight with Gail Dorfman, candidate for CD5.

Blogger Jay said:
Nobody has claimed superiority over the other. The argument was about counting delegates, which is an art within the industry.
Like picking a jury. Great lawyers still employ either the tactics or the expertise of trained lawyers who are good at selecting juries. You may not want them to handle your divorce, but you want them there to pick in a jury in your murder trial.

Pam's mistake was something that a more seasoned operator would have not engaged in, or got caught in. And, if caught, would have resigned from the campaign. Her apologizing is great, but responsibility lies at the top. Where is Steve on this?

Listing and quoting delegates who are not in support of your campaign, though you say they are, is a small blunder that makes it look like you don't have it together.

Personally, I take everything with a grain of salt from you.
Joe Bodell a rich kid from Wayzata who is twenty years behind me. You're not a homeowner (property taxes), you're not raising a family (schools, health care and safety) and you haven't built a business over the last 15 years (taxes,health care costs and other economic issues). So, why would I listen to you on what or who's best for Minnesota?
Who's most inspiring? Motivating? Maybe even enlightening? You can certainly have the inside scoop in those things but, the bread and butter issues are tough (not impossible) to hear from a campaign where the experience is light and the ages are enviable. I think the only candidate that could get away with this is Hatch as he has a 30 year record with the DFL party and a 20 year record serving the citizens of Minnesota. His personality and name rec over-shadows the youth.

A good campaign will have a healthy mix of both youth and experience, and traditional party insiders as well as those who come from outside the DFL processes.

Get mad at the Lourey campaign if you want but, look at yours. Kelley is coming up on one year in this race. He raised decent money. His staff is from all over the state. Yet, he finds himself, not in a struggle with Hatch (who has been pretty low-key this cycle), but with Lourey who got in the race six months beyond Kelley, supposedly has no money, bad strategy, no message, a mean-spirited staff and a cow uterus story. Who put him there? If it wasn't Lourey's strength, it has to be his campaign.

By the way, i noticed your shout-out to Ken. According to the Strib, Hatch and Lourey numbers match, its Kelley who thinks both them to be false. Are you going to tell me now that Hatch and Lourey don't know what they're doing?

We are all in the same party but, that doesn't mean we have to go to the same parties.

David Jay Ziegler- "Jay"
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?