People Still Beat Computers in Running Campaigns

I was in the office of a prominent DC consultant earlier this week when they told me something startling about the Clinton Campaign I just finished up on- an algorithm decided the schedule for the candidate. In translation, that means the campaign put a set of data into a computer, and it told them where to send the candidate. While I have no idea if that is actually true, it would make a lot of sense. An algorithm determined who was in the volunteer recruitment calls, and who was a likely supporter. If you told me the entire campaign was automated by a computer, I would believe it. The same consultant became about the 15th person to tell me since the campaign ended that the former President was very unhappy with the scheduling, and at times was literally forming his own schedule to hit the road.

I trust data to do a lot of things. I trust data to tell me who to target as my voters. I trust data to tell me even how to target them, in terms of which message and whether or not they were a knock or a call. I don't trust data to tell me what my schedule should be. What does data add on beyond human intelligence in deciding whether you send Hillary Clinton or President Obama to a certain site? What does it say for the campaign's algorithm that Hillary Clinton became the first nominee in at least 30 years to not step foot in Northampton or Lehigh Counties in Pennsylvania during the campaign? What does it say for the campaign's algorithm that she didn't go to Wisconsin at all down the stretch, a state that is always close, and that she lost in the primary? What does it say for the algorithm that the only places it could seem to find in North Carolina for anyone to stop were college towns and larger cities? I don't pretend that I'm smarter than every computer, but I sure as hell could have found Allentown, Toledo, and Cedar Rapids on a map for the candidate.

Old school, human powered campaigns do have disadvantages against data driven campaigns. Modeling and targeting is crucial in winning a campaign. There are certain things that older, less data driven operatives get right, that frankly the brain-trust didn't in this case. I can assure you that Hillary Clinton's chances of victory in this election would have been higher if she had found more than Philadelphia and Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania map, and maybe had visited Bethlehem once.

But then again, what do I know- I haven't accepted the religion of the algorithm yet.