1. A typically great piece that also links to this recent deep-dive by @dylanmatt on the poli sci literature on canvassing and gotv: vox.com/21366036/canva…
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1306945504585175041
2. One piece of background context to pieces like these is that a cohort of young progressive data people, of whom @davidshor is a leading example, have for a few years now been promulgating the notion that door-knocking is a lib indulgence and inefficient vote-getter.
3. Their arguments had begun to influence the thinking of journalists in their orbit but hadn't quite coalesced as a new public-facing #Take to counter the narrative of an Obama-'08-birthed renaissance of Dem field ops. Then God decided to launch a natural experiment via Covid.
4. Without the pandemic, a cash-flushed Biden campaign would have no reason not to throw money at field even if it *suspected* it was inefficient to do so, just to be safe. But given the pandemic, we're instead watching a maximally high-stakes and high-profile test.
5. The Matthews piece synthesizes a lot of recent poli sci work that bolsters the canvassing-skeptical case, but also usefully highlights the fact that there remains live debate over the strongest version of it (i.e. that campaigns should deemphasize field in favor of ads). 
6. (This is useful because the house style for this cohort of data folks in their public engagement tends toward a kind of affect of blithe confidence that makes me a little nervous.)
7. Goldberg's column also includes some very useful reporting, notably a rosier assessment of the Biden operation from the same Michigan Dem Party operative (now chair) who sounded the alarm about HRC four years ago. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
