The Elly Report: Candidates Corner

2004 Candidate Survey: Analyzing the Performance of the "Reform Team"

by Mike Potaski, Massachusetts Republican Assembly

The Massachusetts Republican Assembly conducted a survey of "Reform Team" members in the aftermath of the 2004 election. The "Reform Team" was a slate of Republican legislative candidates put forward by the Massachusetts Republican Party to challenge Democratic control of the Massachusetts legislature. The candidates were presumably vetted by the Massachusetts GOP, were unveiled with great fanfare by Governor Mitt Romney, and entered the fray with the expectation of full support from the Governor and all levels of the Massachusetts GOP hierarchy.

The result was a rout with all Democrat incumbents retaining their seats and a net loss of seats for the GOP.

The survey was designed to gather data that would explain the debacle from the candidates' perspective. 135 questionnaires were sent to 96 State Representative candidates, 32 State Senate candidates, 2 county Sheriff candidates, and 5 U.S. Congressional candidates. Candidate identities were determined from a meticulous town-by-town review of the Massachusetts GOP web site as no comprehensive listing of the "Reform Team" could be found on any available resource. Mailing addresses for the candidates were derived from the State Office of Campaign and Political Finance web site. Four questionnaires were returned by the Post Office as undeliverable.

Of the 131 questionnaires that were presumably delivered successfully, 40 candidates completed the survey for a response rate of 30.5%. Two candidates known to have been verbally critical of the Republican State Committee for the level of support they received declined to return the survey. One is an incumbent in a town office and aspires to run for state office in the future while the other is a candidate in an upcoming election.

Candidates were asked to rate the level of support they received in 15 categories covering all levels of the Party hierarchy. The evaluation criteria were based on feedback from candidates and/or campaign workers in 7 of the "Reform Team" races. The evaluation criteria were designed on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 signifying poor support and 5 reflecting excellent support. Where a few candidates provided responses between the indicated values or circled a range of values, the higher number was used to calculate the score. Where a few candidates wrote in a 0 or a negative number, 1 was used to calculate the score. The choice of the higher numbers in both instances was a deliberate move to give the Massachusetts GOP the benefit of the doubt. Ratings of 4 or 5 were considered positive, a rating of 3 was considered neutral, and a rating of 1 or 2 was considered negative.

Category of support evaluated, responses, and average scores (scale of 1-5, with 5 being highest score):

1. Candidate training provided by/through the MassGOP:

Positive 30%
Neutral 27.5%
Negative 42.5%
Average Score 2.97

2. Campaign management training provided by/through the MassGOP imparted essential knowledge and skills:

Positive 25%
Neutral 27.5%
Negative 47.5%
Average Score 2.76

3. The MassGOP continuously monitored my campaign's progress and provided useful feedback and advice:

Positive 15%
Neutral 20%
Negative 65%
Average Score 2.08

4. The MassGOP effectively coordinated the enlistment and assignment of College Republican and Young Republican volunteers:

Positive 0%
Neutral 12.5%
Negative 87.5%
Average Score 1.63

5. MassGOP mass mailings and GOTV efforts in my district were appropriately tailored:

Positive 10%
Neutral 30%
Negative 60%
Average Score 2.13

6. MassGOP fundraising efforts and allocation of funds to my campaign:

Positive 20%
Neutral 10%
Negative 70%
Average Score 2.12

7. Public endorsement of my campaign by GOP State officeholders:

Positive 30%
Neutral 10%
Negative 60%
Average Score 2.39

8. Advice and assistance received from GOP State officeholders:

Positive 35%
Neutral 15%
Negative 50%
Average Score 2.66

9. Advice and assistance received from Republican State Committee Regional Coordinator:

Positive 32.5%
Neutral 12.5%
Negative 55%
Average Score 2.57

10. Public endorsement of my campaign by Republican State Committeemen/women:

Positive 17.5%
Neutral 7.5%
Negative 75%
Average Score 2.15

11. Advice and assistance received from Republican State Committeemen/women:

Positive 20%
Neutral 20%
Negative 60%
Average Score 2.39

12. Mobilization of GOP base by Republican State Committeemen/women:

Positive 7.5%
Neutral 15%
Negative 77.5%
Average Score 1.84

13. Republican State Committeemen/women assistance in coordinating my campaign efforts and those of other candidates:

Positive 10%
Neutral 15%
Negative 75%
Average Score 1.78

14. Mobilization of Republican Town Committees in my district by Republican State Committeemen/women:

Positive 10%
Neutral 17.5%
Negative 72.5%
Average Score 1.89

15. Assistance received from Republican Town Committees in my district:

Positive 20%
Neutral 30%
Negative 50%
Average Score 2.68

No assessed category received an average score of neutral or positive as the highest average score was 2.97.

The worst responses were on the question about the enlistment and assignment of College Republicans/Young Republican volunteers to assist Reform Team candidates. Candidates that commented on this issue were universal in expressing profound disappointment that the MassGOP actively siphoned this resource to support the national campaign in other states.

Many of the candidates that responded to the survey also provided written comments about their experiences:

Several candidates felt betrayed by the MassGOP which courted them to run and allayed their concerns about inexperience with promises of organization building and fund raising support which never materialized.
Numerous candidates expressed frustration at having to divert time and effort from their campaigns to update volunteer and voter lists in the "Campaign Portal" because of the suggestion that MassGOP financial support would be contingent on those data base maintenance efforts.
In one instance a Reform Team candidate was treated to a declaration in the media by sitting Republican legislators that they could not endorse the Reform Team candidate because they "work well" with the Democratic incumbent.
Several candidates raised lack of support from Republican State Committeemen/women who rebuffed the candidates' requests for advice and assistance, or declined to answer e-mails or return telephone calls. In several instances, Committeemen/women were seen only when the Governor or Lieutenant Governor was on the scene. In one instance a Committeeman wrote that he would not support the Reform Team candidates because he disagreed with that effort. Some candidates voiced concern about Committeemen/women who claimed to be unable to assist candidates because they hold State jobs.
Numerous candidates expressed concern that Republican Town Committees in the districts in which they were running were apathetic or even hostile to their campaigns. In at least one instance an RTC officer informed a campaign manager that the Committee was supportive of the Democratic incumbent.

Please contact Mike Potaski if you have any questions.

2004 Candidate Survey: A Candidate's Response from Steve Paige

2004 Candidate Survey: An Activist's Response from Desiree Awiszio

2004 Candidate Survey: An Activist's Response from Chanel Prunier

2004 Candidate Survey: A State Committee Member's Response from Lance May

2004 Candidate Survey: A Candidate's Response from Greer Swinston

2004 Candidate Survey: A State Committee Member's Response from Rebecca Dono Healy

2004 Candidate Survey: A State Committee Regional Chair's Response from Ed Bertorelli