Barve Campaign Manager Not Thrilled With My Scorecards

So this was a surprise email I received this morning from the Kumar Barve Campaign Manager (Seth Maiman):

Seth Maiman Email

Click to view larger version

Now I am not surprised that he is not thrilled with my analysis (his candidate is not doing the best of the candidates running in MD08), but was still a little taken back by it. I have no favorite candidate that I am supporting in any way in this race. All I try and do is report the numbers I see and provide links for the public to the candidate resources. It is to bad that he seems to think I am trying to tell a specific “narrative”.

My recommendation is that he read all of the scorecards that have been completed in this race:

February: https://scotteblog.com/2016/02/13/candidates-marylands-8th-congressional-district-february-technology-outreach-scorecard/

January: https://scotteblog.com/2016/01/16/candidates-marylands-8th-congressional-district-january-technology-outreach-scorecard/

December: https://scotteblog.com/2015/12/16/candidates-marylands-8th-congressional-district-december-technology-outreach-scorecard/

November: https://scotteblog.com/2015/11/15/candidates-marylands-8th-congressional-district-technology-outreach-scorecard/

If he were to read the November scorecard he would see that I wrote “Facebook – Barve holds a clear advantage in total number of followers today. Matthews added the most new followers since the last evaluation with honorable mentions going out to Raskin and Sol-Gutierrez.”

He is correct that I misreported in my January analysis that Raskin had the most Facebook followers. It was a mistake (I make those from time to time but do my best to limit them on the scorecards). The data in the scorecard table is clear that Barve had the most followers…if I had received an email asking me to correct it I would have been happy to do so at the time I published it (Note – it is corrected now on that evaluation).

He is correct that I do not report on the “moneyed” candidates spending money to grow their online presence – I have no way to track that information. But why is this a bad thing? Running online adds to grow your audience is a good thing if you can do it. Buying followers is a bad thing and I have called out candidates when I have suspected this practice in the past…and will continue to do so in the future. I do not see any evidence of that in this race to date.

Finally, the Barve numbers (as far as adding new followers) have not been as good as others…it is a pretty simple breakdown:

Facebook adds

November

December

January

February

Barve

+41

+30

+52

+20

Raskin

+371

+175

+75

+189

Matthews

+895

+32

+210

+147

Twitter Adds

November

December

January

February

Barve

+171

+51

+50

+70

Raskin

+540

+108

+78

+109

Matthews

+233

+63

+36

+85

Even the engagement numbers (when I have done them) have not been the best (see the November, December and January scorecards).

What I do is track the “trends” of a campaign by reporting on candidates who are reaching and adding followers and I also add analysis of engagement on platforms like Facebook and Twitter (although never both in the same month…I find it fun to mix it up). I did not do engagement analysis in February due to the GREAT number of changes in candidates and wanting to spend time listing ALL candidates and their websites on the scorecards. If that is “wacky analysis”…then so be it. I know a great many people find it interesting and useful. For those that don’t find it useful, feel free to ignore my posts. That is your right.

I am sure it is frustrating when your candidate is not doing as well as others in a race for office…but lashing out at me will not help you win. All I do is report the numbers and from time to time even provide some suggestions on how to improve your online outreach. It is to bad that he did not reach out to me and ask to talk to me about my analysis, I would have been happy to explain the numbers and answer any questions he would have had…but this type of email…well, I just find that WACKY!

Hopefully we can get past this and be friends going forward. I really have nothing against Seth or Kumar Barve and I wish them lots of luck in the future.

Have a great day.

Scott E

Update: After the post and a few emails back and forth this was the final comment form Seth Maiman via email:

Scott,

I appreciate that you changed the mistake and the effort that you make to highlight the use of technology and social media in political campaigns.

Thanks,

Seth

I appreciate that last comment in the email and hope he continues to read the posts in the future.

Scott E

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s