Libertea Party
11-07-2010, 06:13 PM
And of course the Courier Journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101107/COLUMNISTS12/311070050/1016/)buries the lede again:
So, with little more than two weeks to go, Conway was clearly behind. To win, he needed a game-changer to make the election a referendum on the unusual Paul, not on the unpopular Obama, whom Republicans had wrapped around his neck.
Conway said his consultants produced a “greatest hits” ad with six to 10 of Paul's most controversial statements, but didn't run it because it made so many points they thought it wouldn't cut through the clutter of ads on TV. He said the material on Paul's anti-religious activity in college polled better than anything else, “and when we gamed it out with his likely response, we still came out ahead.”
He said the ad's script was tested with polling, but the ad itself was not shown to a small, representative “focus group” of voters — or to his part-time campaign chairperson, state Auditor Crit Luallen. He said she was not on the final conference call when the decision was made, but he described the ad to her.
“He told me he was very uncomfortable with it,” Luallen said. “My advice was to rely on his own personal instinct….. If he was uncomfortable, that should be a significant factor.”
On the conference call that followed, Conway said his consultants told him, “If you want to win this race you have to run the ad.” He summed up his decision for me this way: “When everyone around you tells you to pull the trigger, you go ahead and do it.”
But “everyone” did not include Luallen or anyone else with her level of experience in Kentucky politics, and Conway clearly needed that. He may have “an incredible intellect,” as Luallen says, but when it comes to the gut instinct that is so important in politics, he either lacks a full measure of it, full confidence in it, or both.
Conway reiterated that he has no regrets about the decision, despite the collective wisdom that it, and Paul's skillful responses, effectively ended the race. Paul's final response ad ran until Election Day, indicating that his polls showed knew the controversy was cutting his way.
Conway did say he was surprised by the criticism from “many of the more liberal types,” some of whom appeared in that last response ad. “It was a risky move for a Democrat to throw a right hook,” he said.
But there was more at risk than the outcome of one election, such as the fate of other Democratic candidates and Conway's political future. One poll showed he ended the race with a majority of voters viewing him negatively, which could attract significant opposition as he seeks re-election as attorney general next year. Did Conway wonder, as he pondered the decision, if it would hurt him in future races?
“Maybe a little bit,” he said. “It's one of those things, you're just so focused on winning the race.” And so were his consultants, who relied too heavily on polls and not enough on real people. And he relied too heavily on the consultants.
So, with little more than two weeks to go, Conway was clearly behind. To win, he needed a game-changer to make the election a referendum on the unusual Paul, not on the unpopular Obama, whom Republicans had wrapped around his neck.
Conway said his consultants produced a “greatest hits” ad with six to 10 of Paul's most controversial statements, but didn't run it because it made so many points they thought it wouldn't cut through the clutter of ads on TV. He said the material on Paul's anti-religious activity in college polled better than anything else, “and when we gamed it out with his likely response, we still came out ahead.”
He said the ad's script was tested with polling, but the ad itself was not shown to a small, representative “focus group” of voters — or to his part-time campaign chairperson, state Auditor Crit Luallen. He said she was not on the final conference call when the decision was made, but he described the ad to her.
“He told me he was very uncomfortable with it,” Luallen said. “My advice was to rely on his own personal instinct….. If he was uncomfortable, that should be a significant factor.”
On the conference call that followed, Conway said his consultants told him, “If you want to win this race you have to run the ad.” He summed up his decision for me this way: “When everyone around you tells you to pull the trigger, you go ahead and do it.”
But “everyone” did not include Luallen or anyone else with her level of experience in Kentucky politics, and Conway clearly needed that. He may have “an incredible intellect,” as Luallen says, but when it comes to the gut instinct that is so important in politics, he either lacks a full measure of it, full confidence in it, or both.
Conway reiterated that he has no regrets about the decision, despite the collective wisdom that it, and Paul's skillful responses, effectively ended the race. Paul's final response ad ran until Election Day, indicating that his polls showed knew the controversy was cutting his way.
Conway did say he was surprised by the criticism from “many of the more liberal types,” some of whom appeared in that last response ad. “It was a risky move for a Democrat to throw a right hook,” he said.
But there was more at risk than the outcome of one election, such as the fate of other Democratic candidates and Conway's political future. One poll showed he ended the race with a majority of voters viewing him negatively, which could attract significant opposition as he seeks re-election as attorney general next year. Did Conway wonder, as he pondered the decision, if it would hurt him in future races?
“Maybe a little bit,” he said. “It's one of those things, you're just so focused on winning the race.” And so were his consultants, who relied too heavily on polls and not enough on real people. And he relied too heavily on the consultants.