Kerry Campaign Shakeup
Sen. John Kerry is angry at the way his campaign has botched the attacks from the Swift boat veterans and has ordered a staff shakeup that will put former Clinton aides in top positions. "The candidate is furious," a longtime senior Kerry adviser told the Daily News. "He knows the campaign was wrong. He wanted to go after the Swift boat attacks, but his top aides said no." Campaign sources stressed that no one is losing a job at this point, but instead "proven winners" like former Clinton aides Joe Lockhart and Joel Johnson are being brought in to try to regain momentum for Team Kerry.First, a campaign re-org at this stage of the game does not send a message of confidence. I would guess that the Kerry internal polls are showing an even bleaker picture than what we are seeing emerge from the published poll results. Second, from my distant, amateur viewpoint, the last thing the Kerry Campaign needs is more people. They already have a cast of thousands of advisors (here is a post on that). If you think you need new people, ok, maybe, but fire someone and replace them. Anyone who has been in an overly large meeting at work knows that quantity doesn't increase quality is such matters. Third, Do you really, really want someone loyal to the Clinton's coming into your campaign just at the moment when the door of opportunity seems to be opening for Hillary 2008? (via Instapundit
posted by Dave Justus | 9/01/2004 06:59:00 AM
3 Comments:
"quantity doesn't increase quality is such matters."
Have you studied future markets, much?
There are some studies that suggest guantity leads to quality decisions.
Futures markets are individuals making decisions on their own, that achieve a collective wisdom. Actually this is true of all markets and Adam Smith's invisible hand theory rests squarely on this idea.
While by and large this works it has notable failures at times. The internet bubble is one example.
Regardless of that, this doesn't really relate to many policy/strategy advisors in a campaign. A campaign needs to come to one single decision on things, and hope it is the best one, it cannot function as a aggregate of many seperate decisions. Just like you wouldn't have each soldier independantly decide what was the best strategy to defeat an enemy on the theory that the invisible hand of warfare would yeild superior strategy.
"Just like you wouldn't have each soldier independantly decide what was the best strategy to defeat an enemy on the theory that the invisible hand of warfare would yeild superior strategy."
Each campaing person should not make a decision,agreed.
Giving input is not making the decsion though. Each idea shaping the finial decision, in theory yeild a superior strategy. The finial decsion could rest with one very well informed group, which has aggreated data from all of its sources.
Basically, bringing in more people to give input is not a bad decsion, as long as that data is managned, aggreated, and displayed well. Which that is mostly likely going to be the problem. They will have to many unweighted opinions floated around, and the finial decsion will be decdied on who is the loudest or closest to the leader.
so they could be making a great move, if they can handle the data that will be generated, but alas it proaby won't work out.
Post a Comment
<< Home