A quick follow up to one part of the mojometers, just to clarify something, and since it concerns a portion of the report I was responsible for writing, I thought I’d just take it.

In referencing the Markowitz campaign, it wasn’t my intention to send the message that they weren’t doing field work. Clearly they are. As I mentioned, they recently staffed up. The point I wanted to make was that they have only begun to work field hard recently, while many of their rivals have been developing field infrastructure more seriously for longer.

It is fact that Markowitz staff time has been more focused on fundraising, as compared to the others. What is opinion, then, is that this suggests a relative, inherent undervaluing of the ground game, and a proportionate increased reliance on (the soon-to-come) paid media.

The response from Markowitz staff and partisans, put simply, is that the comparatively late focus on field isn’t undervaluing it, its simply doing it right – and that is one school of thought.

Certainly its not the only one. A good example is the Dunne campaign. Dunne is being advised by at least one seriously heavy hitter in the political organizing world. He’s also being supported by 21st Century Democrats, an organization the focuses on campaign field work. His campaign, backed by such seasoned professionals, has been serious about the ground game for many months now. All of which is to say, what the “right” way is continues to be subject to much debate among the experts.

And this is Vermont, home of Democracy for America, which is known for promoting it’s own, far more time-intensive model of campaign field organizing, and that DFA culture has certainly impacted the way many of us in Vermont – myself included – look at this stuff.

So anyway, I hope that fleshes out the thinking a bit, and helps to distinguish the facts from the opinions in the piece.