2. In Democratic politics, research is considered an entry level job that you slog through on your way to something glitzier like press

It's a task delegated to the most inexperienced and lowest-paid staff

3. Meanwhile, pollsters are paid MILLIONS to message test based on information that is already public to find the most effective message.

These millions usually result in ads about how candidate X "supports working families"

4. These messages poll well but do not break through in the modern information environment.

Research can provide information that can break through, but its seen as an afterthought

Most Congressional campaigns and many Senate campaigns don't have real research operations

5. I'll add that Republicans have long taken a different approach to opposition research.

While Democrats utilize recent college graduates and interns, Republicans generally employ experienced lawyers to do oppo, at least for high-profile races

6. Democrats would be better off if they stopped fetishizing polling and made real investments in research capacity.

The best pollsters value research because they understand it can unlock messages that make a real difference.

But it's not the norm.

7. In addition to a lack a resources, few people provide effective training on how to do political research and how to present it.

The process of creating a "book" described in @[email protected]'s op-ed is the same thing I was doing when I started doing political research in 1997

@[email protected] 8. The idea of a static "book" (which literally used to be a three ring binder) was outdated by the early 2000s

And yet, it is still being utilized today because there is very little innovation in the research world

@[email protected] 9. Final thought: While oppo research has a bad reputation it is actually something that benefits the public.

The public should have known more about Santos before election day

Message polling is just about manipulation

Oppo research informs