Electioneering Strategy

Looking at post-election commentenary I like to read about how surprising results happened. Usually it is not by luck alone (but always some of that, too). The race for Congress in NY-25 House district caught my interest as the challenger, Ann Marie Buerkle, appears to have narrowly won her race against a well-liked incumbent (the race is still too close to call). Certainly, part of her fortune was to run in a heavily-tilted GOP year as a republican. But according to this Syracuse article, the anti-democratic wave was not sufficient for her to win, but a network of novice campaigners provided the groundwork to get her over the top.

What is also very interesting is all the volunteer work that goes into campaigns (we already know about all the money). And the question begs: Is volunteer work by novice constituents more effective than campaign work done by paid professionals? Consider this NY-25 constituent that is featured in the article as helping spear-hear the volunteer network of support: "I listened to her talk and I was totally captivated with her," Maslona said of Buerkle. "It really motivated me to want to work for her."

And here is her assessment of her difference-making volunteer brigade: "It was just a lot of hard work," she said. "I don't know how else to describe it. The volunteers just kept me going. I couldn't have paid these volunteers to do this kind of work with so much passion and enthusiasm." In a campaign year when Meg Whitman lost the California governor's race by 10 points after spending $150 million, it is nice to hear that passion often trumps money when human capital is what is really needed.

Future Value

Today is election day and the political "experts" have made their predictions for the outcome. Which brings up the interesting dilemma of predicting the future -- in business and politics and sports people like to predict the future. The popularity of punditry is undeniable.

First, for today's election is pretty straightforward because of the science of polling. Predicting republicans will pick up seats in the U.S. Congress is simple because of the many polls taken over the last several months. Interestingly, however, when the polls show something that is unprecedented such as the what some say about the size of the possible changeover, then the pundits can create alternative interpretations as they try to fit the new facts to historical records.

Punditry and fascination for the future has few limits. Consider the Internet site intrade where you can bet on future events of all stripes. For example, do you know the odds that Sarah Palin will get the republican presidential nomination in 2012? Well at this moment those odds are nearly 17% according to those willing to bet their money via intrade. I am not sure, but I doubt Barack Obama was even rated for the nomination in 2006, two years before he got elected president (and those that took high odds on Hilary Clinton lost their bet). The future is fascinating, but impossible to predict.

Many tomorrow will get their predictions about this election mostly right (intrade has the probability of a republican takeover in the House at 96%, so don't be too impressed by anyone predicting such an outcome) but anyone who cared to predict this election 18 months ago or earlier . . . well they might as well go the racetrack (or predict who will win the world series in 2011) where educated guesses probably are going to still lose you money.