Read on Twitter
wait wait wait. halt presses. talk about burying the lede. yes I know pandemic coup collapse-of-democracy etc. but PEOPLE
@davidshor is on team Yard Signs *Do* Vote
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/468275/28385878/1608653961717/rs248transcript.pdf?token=HCWiVqlIhj1CW8K0YM1S%2BFkQ6Do%3D
@davidshor is on team Yard Signs *Do* Vote
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/468275/28385878/1608653961717/rs248transcript.pdf?token=HCWiVqlIhj1CW8K0YM1S%2BFkQ6Do%3D
& he says it all nonchalant, like he doesn't realize that w this one banner he can summon to his side all the supervols he needs to campaign on whatever the heck msg he suggests, eternally loyal bc someone finally stopped undercuttng their lived truth of politcs in their communty
ok for anyone here who has not lived the yard signs wars 1st hand: Local volunteers everywhere passionately believe in the impact of yard signs. Dem campaign pros, esp since data-driven methods/metrics became gospel, largely don't. Here's the skeptic case: https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/1050370753135300608
& here's a great @MisOfFact post fr this fall, fr 3 scholars who ask an importantly distinct set of questions re yard signs: not how much does each sign budge the likelhood of one vote, but why do we become invested in imbuing our spaces w/political signs? https://twitter.com/smotus/status/1313115040107511816
The great thing tho is it isn't either-or! Dem vols have proved happy to invest in yard signs, & on their own time. They just don't like being condescended to by outsiders who disparage the political communications forms that feel meaningful to them https://twitter.com/MikeJohnsonPA/status/1344526113926733824
Anyway Shor's conversation w @juliagalef then goes off in another direction (basically, a supply-side account of the overproduction of certain leftwing policy positions, grounded in a social/labor history of the changing composition of actors positioned to be loud in that realm)
[ @davidshor might describe it differently & you should def listen yourself if you haven't already] http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-248-are-democrats-being-irrational-david-shor.html BUT one thing I found superinteresting was thistangential critique of RCTs as source of knowledge re campaign impacts, which is somethng I think about alot
![[ @davidshor might describe it differently & you should def listen yourself if you haven't already] http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-248-are-democrats-being-irrational-david-shor.html BUT one thing I found superinteresting was thistangential critique of RCTs as source of knowledge re campaign impacts, which is somethng I think about alot](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eqleq5_XEAI-FZy.png "[ @davidshor might describe it differently & you should def listen yourself if you haven't already] http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-248-are-democrats-being-irrational-david-shor.html BUT one thing I found superinteresting was thistangential critique of RCTs as source of knowledge re campaign impacts, which is somethng I think about alot")
tangential critique of RCTs as source of knowledge re campaign impacts, which is somethng I think about alot
I think there are important insights to be borrowed fr Deaton & others' critiques of the use/framing of RCT-derived findings within int'l development, for instance that RCTs in themselves often have little to say about contextually conditional impacts, http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Deaton_Cartwright_RCTs_with_ABSTRACT_August_25.pdf
...which for practitioners may be the most high priority question. But also: RCTs are not designed to capture impacts that are diffuse, long-term, interactive— not coincidentally, all characteristics of @LeftWordsOrg's case for lawn signs (& more) here https://twitter.com/LeftWordsOrg/status/1344683319284400128
https://twitter.com/LeftWordsOrg/status/1344683319284400128
Going to pick up @davidshor's clarification herebc it points to an open question re 2020 I haven't seen answered through y'know, data in the way it surely can. Did failure to knock doors really cost Dems downballot? Lots of smart people insist it did, 
? https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1344718864375013376
bc it points to an open question re 2020 I haven't seen answered through y'know, data in the way it surely can. Did failure to knock doors really cost Dems downballot? Lots of smart people insist it did, ? https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1344718864375013376
In this piece in Oct, @Fisher_DanaR & I argued that the most important advantages of in-person doorknocking (in comparison to phonebank/textbank/digital outreach) are likely longer-term externalities: connections built among volunteers & within communities https://prospect.org/politics/door-knocking-in-a-life-or-death-campaign/
We also noted the slowdown of in-person voter registration had hurt Dems, in cities in particular: I think events bore that out. But since Nov, lots of downballot candidates have made the stronger claim that reliance on text/phone volunteer outreach cost them votes, even victory
In a year when downballot candidates saw unprecedented, mass volunteers poured into voter contacting, the claim that the impact lost by channelng them via phone/textbank cost elections requires a doorknock differential an order of magnitude larger than prior research ever found
Which could be true! I'm already convinced there are lots of non-November-driven reasons why face-2-face canvassng is good for political activists & movements so I'd be thrilled if the shorter term/expedient case for it were also stronger than we thought https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/25/18275868/2020-presidential-election-midterms-democrats-candidate-progressive-base
so I'd be thrilled if the shorter term/expedient case for it were also stronger than we thought https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/25/18275868/2020-presidential-election-midterms-democrats-candidate-progressive-base
