Every major technological change has also changed the way campaigns are run and the structure of the campaign headquarters. Television created media consultants, and the internet brought digital directors into the headquarters. Once we started leaning on databases, the people working with voter files, CRM systems and digital advertising moved from the edge of the operation to its centre. I still remember what a revolution it was when we set up the first internet department in a Serbian campaign headquarters, back in 2011. Suddenly the building held people whose job description had not existed five years earlier, while the press office carried on untouched. This text grew out of Miles Maftean’s analysis “Meet the Campaign AI Engineer” (Partisan Hub). His thesis struck me as correct but not sufficiently tested on terrain like ours, so I have extended it with data and with experience from the campaigns of the past year. Everyone is looking for the dragon in the wrong place The curre...

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 b...

A debate is rarely won by arguments alone. A debate is won by control. This is the sentence I repeat to every candidate before a TV appearance, and almost every time I hear the same reply: “I’ll win because I have better data, a better program, a better biography.” All of that may be true and still completely irrelevant, because the viewer at home does not remember arguments. They remember the impression. They remember who seemed calm and who seemed cornered, and most importantly: who commanded the studio and who was on the defensive. A TV studio is, by definition, hostile territory for a politician. You face several opponents there: a counterpart who wants to throw you off balance, a host who wants drama because drama boosts ratings, and a camera that records everything—especially what you think it’s not recording. There are rules for all three opponents. Here’s how it’s actually done. Being calm  is  a message Provocation in a studio is never accidental. A rival who insults ...

  1.      No internal digital department   Any modern political party would be remiss to not have its in-house digital section. In the age of ever-growing digital media, political parties need to have a staff of digital professionals that can help them stay ahead of the competition. All of the party's online activities, including outreach to voters and content creation, should be managed by this team. They must also be adept at using digital tactics to further the party's agenda. Political parties in the modern day need to develop digital sections if they want to compete. This team needs to be able to come up with interesting material for party members and think of fresh ways to reach out to potential voters. They should also be able to track the success of their digital marketing campaigns and adjust as needed. When a political party has its digital department, it can better adapt to the rapidly shifting nature of online discourse. This team needs the ability t...