#18 HOW IT'S ACTUALLY DONE The Post-Election Analysis

I tell every campaign team the same thing after every election: “Now comes the detailed analysis.” Winners announce it at the very press conference where they declare victory, to show they are serious people. Losers announce the same thing, to show they have drawn the lessons from defeat and that there is a plan for next time. It sounds logical, like standard procedure, something that goes without saying — like the campaign silence period or a properly completed polling board record.

Yes, I tell everyone. And almost nobody actually does it. What usually happens is called an analysis but is in fact either a celebration or a wake, depending on the outcome. The winning team scatters and everyone goes on holiday, because why analyse something that, by definition, worked. The losing team dissolves even faster, because nobody wants to sit in a room and count their own mistakes out loud. I have told both sides, in vain, that every campaign of mine was better than the one before it precisely because I knew where the mistakes had been made.

A real post-election review is uncomfortable. It requires the winner to admit he won in spite of some bad decisions, not thanks to the brilliant strategy everyone is now praising. On the losing side, it requires separating what was planned but unworkable from what was simply a mistake — and those two things are rarely separated in the same conversation without an argument and a defensive tone.

What should exist, and almost never does in practice, is a systematic breakdown of the numbers by category:

Results by polling station, aggregated by municipality and city — compared against the previous election and against the projections the municipal and city boards gave you a week before the vote. This is where you see, for the first time, whether the campaign knew where it stood, or only believed it knew, misled by bad local estimates.

Turnout — where it rose, where it fell, and whether your own base was actually brought to the polls or merely watched from the sidelines.

Behaviour of voter groups — young people, pensioners, first-time voters, the urban and the rural segment. Support rarely rises or falls evenly; it moves in pockets, and whoever does not know which pockets will repeat the same mistake next time. For this you do need one good field survey, which plenty of agencies can run.

Message effect — which messages worked, which missed, and which of the candidate’s statements, in the feedback loop, cost more than they brought in. To test this you need at least four focus groups.

Organisation — headquarters, coordination, poll watchers, GOTV, election day. Very often it turns out the election was not lost because of a bad message, but because out in the field nobody knew who was responsible for what after ten in the morning on election day.

Digital campaign — reach, engagement, cost per conversion. The number of likes is not a result; the result is whether digital spending was, at any point, converted into a physical voter at a polling station. Anyone who looks at these two things separately is measuring the wrong thing.

Finances — where the money went, and what of it actually produced a result, versus what was an expense that felt necessary at the time and left no trace on the campaign.

All of this is rarely measured, because measurement requires data prepared in advance — and a campaign that does not plan its analysis before the election has nothing to analyse after it. A serious report runs from a short overview, through results and demographics, to organisation, media and finances, and ends with recommendations for the next cycle. Not as a formality, but as a document somebody actually reads before writing the next campaign budget.

Here is a practical piece of advice I have always used myself. Build a spreadsheet and enter the results by municipality. Make a bar chart and draw a line across it marking your national result. Then look carefully. Who is far above the line? Call that board and find out what they did better than the others. Do exactly the same with the ones far below your national result. If you have no stomach for anything more than that, this alone can open your eyes.

Why it matters

A campaign without a post-election review repeats the same mistakes, only under a new slogan. Every election cycle looks like the last one, because nothing moved into the party’s institutional knowledge — it all stayed in the heads of people who, by the next election, had already left for other jobs or other parties. That is why certain consultants and certain parties make the same mistakes for decades: no GOTV infrastructure, poor segmentation, late response to attacks, again and again, as if it were happening for the first time.

By contrast, a campaign that really does the analysis gets something that cannot be bought quickly: a cumulative advantage. It knows exactly which polling stations were underestimated, which voter segment responded to which message, and where the field actually worked and where the local board only pretended to. That advantage does not show up on the next election day. It shows up six months earlier, when budget and time are allocated on the basis of data rather than on impressions or on friendship with the party president.

And here is where the biggest misconception in the whole process sits: the post-election review gets reduced to the question “why did we lose?”, as if winners had no need for it. They do. Victory hides weaknesses better than defeat ever hides mistakes, because a defeat at least has to be explained to somebody. The real question, for winners and losers alike, is: what did we learn from this? That question is very rarely put to people who are hungover from celebrating.

The point

Everyone claims they do a post-election review. Almost nobody sits down, opens the spreadsheet, and admits, in numbers, where they got it wrong. It is much easier to celebrate a victory or mourn a defeat than to admit the distance between the two was far smaller than it looked — and that it could have been closed, if only somebody had been there to see it.

#HowItsActuallyDone  #MANDAT  #postelectionreview  #campaign  #politicalstrategy