There’s a political science literature on this, suggesting that personal canvassing works - https://isps.yale.edu/sites/default/files/publication/2012/12/ISPS00-001.pdf …. Unfortunately, everyone has read it, so that efforts, like much else in political campaigns, likely cancel each other out.
-
-
Replying to @henryfarrell
This is from 2000; there's more recent work suggesting it is ineffective. Trying to find the cite.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
Which is probably mostly about prejudice reduction but in practice might be boosted by the lack of a competitive environment where both sides are using the same playbook.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @henryfarrell2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
-
Replying to @Pinboard
Yes - it’s had a lot of impact (Broockman was one of the coauthors on the transphobia paper, as well as the discoverer of the aforementioned research fraud). Notable that it finds that nothing much else works either.
@hugoreasoning has good discussion in his new book.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Have you looked at the latest Broockman and Kalla paper, which shows that deep canvassing does work? https://www.vox.com/2020/1/29/21065620/broockman-kalla-deep-canvassing …
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
I have. But think of the practical situation this implies: J. Random College Student knocks on your door with a clipboard, and you have a ten-minute deep conversation about a profoundly personal issue with this young stranger, while they try to feign empathy. It's not realistic.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Your cynicism is unwarranted. I was just part of a group of 85 deep canvassers in Bucks County and we were decidedly not "random college students" but more typically ordinary middle-aged mostly white folks. We were well-trained, no empathy was feigned, and voters moved.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
First, you know my work and have no right to call me cynical. Second, everyone has a feel-good experience canvassing. I had many. That is part of what makes the experience powerful for participants, and blinds them to all unwelcome evidence about its actual efficacy
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Your tweets on this thread read to me as overly critical. Traditional canvassing can up turnout a few points. It wasn’t going to save that PA race after redistricting. And deep canvassing is showing stronger results but hasn’t yet been tried at scale.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That PA race showed no effects from a year of the most intense, well-organized canvassing the DCCC had seen in any House race. I'm not talking about victory, but simply a discernible effect on votes. Everyone agrees field can help a bit on turnout, that's not our disagreement.
-
-
I'll look at any evidence but am no longer going to be persuaded by stories about why a rebranded version of strangers knocking on people's doors will produce different results.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Intuitively, I get why this might work for local elections (where I just have no clue is running without work), and not for federal (AGAIN? Shut up Yang!). In fact, it might even harden some people with blowback effect type stuff, which would worry me. But what will work?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.