but...

While others play their behind-the-scenes, Machiavellian games if they so desire, Jon Bowerbank will continue to conduct himself in an honest, forthright, direct manner, just as he does in his business dealings and in his life in general.

...could you tell us now if your posts on the LG race are going to be of the canned, talking point variety as the above quote would indicate?

"of the canned, talking point variety." *****snark******

it's obvious you're kidding, just as it's obvious that you'll probably have a wealth of commentary on all races in VA. But this reads like a press release.

Not that it's your fault, but I'm sure we're only moments from another NLS post on how Jody Wagner sucks as bad as Gerry Connolly, since she served in Tim Kaine's cabinet and Jon Bowerbank gave money to Byrne...

about the diary.  And what on earth does the fact that RK has a PAC have to do with anything? It's totally legal, everything's disclosed, what the heck are you talking about?  Finally, in what way does Jody Wagner's "distinguished record of service to the Commonwealth" have anything to do with the subject matter in this diary?  That's a complete red herring.

We all help pay for the blog?  

in the sense that advertising revenue supports the site.

registered users and make a few hundred dollars per month, max, on ad revenues.  Let's just say $500 per month to make the math easy. That means that each of our 5,000 registered users supports this site to the tune of $0.10 per month.  There are also many people who read this site who aren't registered, several times greater than the # of registered users.  So, it's probably more like $0.02 per month per user.  In other words, everyone's free to throw their 2 cents in! :)

Advertising revenue doesn't nearly cover the time Lowell alone spends on this site, never mind the rest of us who regularly contribute.  

Well, alrighty then!  Ha. :)

By the way, I have no idea what you're referring to with regards to Deeds, but I can't wait to hear the story. (snark)

I have no dog in this LG fight, but this is Lowell's blog, for goodness sakes. If you don't like his positions, or you don;t like what appears on the front page, vote with your browser. Boycott his advertisers. Sheesh.

And if you didn't know Lowell was a paid consultant to he Bowerbank campaign, that is your fault. This has been repeatedly disclosed and the ethics of it endlessly dissected here at RK.

I assume Jody didn't know Brodnitz had already committed to another campaign. And now that she knows she will sever her relationship with his firm given the shady dealings. It says Brodnitz started working for the Bowerbank campaign months ago .. he could know strategy, research, all sorts of inside stuff. Jody should disassociate herself immediately.

Not an ideal start to her campaign.

And I'm being generous to Bowerbank.

she may need those ten votes.

I agree that this isn't likely to become an issue in the public's eye, but there is a significant question of ethics (i.e. "shady business") going down here.  It's already been discussed in other comments so no need to repeat the details.  Simply put, the key issue is ethics not votes, and those ethics are in short supply in this situation.

Disclosure: I am a paid consultant to the Bowerbank campaign.

I said "as much as possible," not that I'd never comment on 2009 if there was significant news.

perhaps it's because he thinks Jody is an exceptional candidate?

...he had already committed to Jon Bowerbank, started working with him, etc.  That's very, very unusual.  Also, he had spoken very highly of Bowerbank.

What Lowell is saying is that it is unusual to commit to someone, start advising that candidate and then go and work for that person's opponent. Imagine if in the middle of a trial, or even the pre-trial phase your lawyer decided he would leave your side and go work for the other side. Very Very shady. That lawyer would probably be disbarred.  

The primary difference is that pollsters do not join a bar association or have canons of legal ethics that forbid such a move.

In private industry, of which opinion research would be categorized, people typically employ covenants not to compete and non-disclosure agreements. Moreover, it's not like we have heard Brodnitz's side of the story.

because changing mid-stream like that is unethical and raises a massive conflict of interest. I for one think it is totally legitimate to hold people in every industry, bar association or not, to the ethical standard of "not a shady operator." And I hope Jody Wagner shares that same opinion, and severs ties with Brodnitz.

does not preclude anyone consulting said candidate to switching to candidate Y. It is unusual, on that I think we agree, but Jody Wagner is hardly precluded from hiring the best staff she can, even those who worked for her opponent. If you want to be mad at Brodnitz, then I can see why, but this raises far more questions about Bowerbank than it does Wagner.

Just reading down the thread.

Lowell, stop arguing with this idiot.  

if you've ever been exposed to Bill Kuster, who I think means well, but manages to annoy even those who agree with him.

... If this was so out of character for Brodnitz, maybe Jody Wagner's Current/soon to be former Boss Tim Kaine got involved and told his old pollster that he had to do this for the Guv.

I have no doubt that the usual crowd will generate another reason to hate the guy who sided with Connolly.

First of all, we here at RK don't "hate" Tim Kaine. In fact, we all think he's a good guy, gregarious, etc. Second, to the extent that we're not happy with him, it's a result of a LOOOOOONG list of disagreements ranging from the estate tax to the environment to Rail to Dulles to the abuser fees to embryonic stem cell research to...on and on and on.  Finally, we're not part of any "usual crowd," we're individuals with a variety of opinions on all kinds of matters.

It seems as if every time there is a primary in this state, the blogosphere picks one side and tries to absolutely decimate the other.  

If this is what we're reading this far out from the 09 primary, I do not care to read what's going to be posted come June of next year.  And it's already started to get pretty bad over at NLS.

I've met Jon Bowerbank and I was impressed.  I came out of that meeting feeling that he is a good person.  Hell, one of the nicest guys I've ever met, Brian Patton, is on his staff.  I'm calling upon the Bowerbank campaign to wage a good, clean campaign.  

I do not want to see this race turn into anything like the Connolly/Byrne or Webb/Miller primaries were.  I expect more out of both Bowerbank and Wagner.  

the points raised in the post? Thanks.

You haven't provided a link to Brodnitz's press release.  And Wagner hasn't resigned or announced her campaign yet.  We have no idea why Brodnitz left Bowerbank's campaign.  

Like I said, I like Jon Bowerbank, but I don't like these kind of knee-jerk attacks upon anyone else.  

announcing that he had switched campaigns.  Wagner's resignation takes effect this Friday.  What are the "attacks" exactly, let alone "knee-jerk?"

This would be an attack, without fully knowing what exactly is going on.

And I'm not sure if you've read NLS lately, but his attacks on Wagner are pretty bad.  And according to his twitter, he's going to say something about her breaking the law.  

Why is this kind of rhetoric necessary?  What does it bring to the table?  

And if the claim is true, that Brodnitz left Bowerbank to go work for Wagner, so what?  Politics nowadays is like baseball.  There are a lot of free agents.  Brodnitz is absolutely allowed to have the Benson Stragety Group work for whomever he likes.  

Can you please specify?  All we're pointing out is that Pete Brodnitz switched from Bowerbank to Wagner under...let's just say "interesting" circumstances.

"Another thing that long-time political observers I've talked to find odd here is for one campaign - actually, not even a campaign yet, as the individual remains a cabinet member until August 8 - to "cherry pick" staff from another campaign.  That's highly unusual, to say the least."

"While others play their behind-the-scenes, Machiavellian games if they so desire..."

Not to mention what is said in the comments.  

However, I do like what Aznew said:

"To me, the key as we approach 2009 (just in case anyone gives a crap about what I have to say) is the good will of the people involved. Perhaps Lowell's post can be read as an "attack," in the sense that it arguably insinuates something untoward has happened to cause Brodnitz to bail, but lets give Lowell, and Brodnitz, the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there was a legit reason for his actions."

1. That's factually what happened, based on all the information I've received.  If you have information that contradicts this, I'd be very interested to hear it.

2. OK, a bit dramatic, but how would you characterize what went down here?  

What if Brodnitz just left to do something else?  Perhaps he's not interested in the LG race at all?

I don't know the specifics and I don't know for sure if he's had any contact with Wagner.  

If Brodnitz does appear on Wagner's campaign team, then yes, something is a little odd.  Until then, it's all speculation.  

Brodnitz left to work for Jody Wagner? (which I do) What if I know the entire back story?  This is not speculation at all, I know what I'm talking about whether you believe me or not.  

That's all I needed to hear.  Maybe I haven't read every word, but I didn't see where Brodnitz had definetively done this.    

So yeah, that situation is more than a little odd.  I would like to hear exactly why he left.  

Theories?

Um... do you really want theories?  Because I can't come up with any that don't boil down to "Peter Brodnitz made an informed choice and decided that he rather help Jody win the nomination."  I'm not sure how enumerating all the possible reasons why Peter picked her over her opponent--and whether or not this represents the first defection of many--is helpful in any way to your candidate.

because, as I've said in other comments, we are 100% sure about our end of the story.  Which means the only question is motive. What would cause this sudden shift by Pete Brodnitz, when it's been an open secret for months that Wagner intended to run for LG?  Hmmmmmmm....

Press releases are generally used for information you want to get to the media.  Why would Brodnitz want to announce to the world that after accepting a position with the Bowerbank campaign, working for the campaign, getting paid by the campaign, he mysteriously quit to work for the competition???  If I were in his shoes, the last thing I'd want is to draw attention to such highly questionable activities.

So we should be holding Jody Wagner accountable for stealing Bowerbank's pollster right out of the box. Are you suggesting it is somehow the Bowerbank campaign's fault that Brodnitz lied and double crossed them? I hope not. And now that the truth is out I hope Jody Wagner dos the right and gets a new pollster.

I think part of this is due to the Democratic party resurgence in Virginia. Suddenly, primaries have real meaning; the winner of the Democratic primary might actually win the general election!

And this is not to mention the fact that this success has provided the party with a deep bench.

Finally, the Netroots has a huge impact on all of this. Indeed, much of it is quite unknown. We know the Netroots will matter, we can;t be sure of how.

To me, the key as we approach 2009 (just in case anyone gives a crap about what I have to say) is the good will of the people involved. Perhaps Lowell's post can be read as an "attack," in the sense that it arguably insinuates something untoward has happened to cause Brodnitz to bail, but lets give Lowell, and Brodnitz, the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there was a legit reason for his actions.

I certainly think this post is important in that is identifies the issue, and there should be more transparency regarding what happened.

So where is Brodnitz in all this speculation?  
Not present and not likely to be. He's too experienced and professional to make public explanations about his client choices.  Too bad.  I'm betting he has one.  

nuf said

I can never leave my job, because I "agreed to work for" them. You may want to acquaint yourself with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I can't help but be amazed by all the conclusions being reached by those with only the story from the pro-Bowerbank and/or anti-Wagner crowd.

when J.D. Drew or David Ortiz or Jason Varitek or whoever decides - in the middle of a game with the Yankees - that, hey, you know what, I'm switching to the Yankees, that's cool with you?  And you'll be there citing the 13th amendment to defend what they did?  Just checking...

they aren't under contract to the Red Sox. Are you suggesting that Brodnitz had signed a contract to only provide his services to Mr. Bowerbank's campaign during a specified period of time? Because that's what Drew, Ortiz, and Varitek did with the Sox.

From this situation to someone can never leave their job.  

Politics, much likes sports, is highly competitive (between very few players) and has clearly defined seasons.  While teams may choose to trade players during a season, it's highly unusual for a player to choose to leave a team to play for a direct competitor in mid-season.  During the off season all bets are off.

Brodnitz, after working for Bowerbank, left to work for the competition during this season.  That is far different from "never leave his job".  

Also, many companies have non-compete clauses that will not allow you, after you choose to leave, to work directly for their competition (or go into business yourself) for a period of usually one or two years.  You can do whatever you want, except compete with your old company.  

If Brodnitz would have quit to work for another race or start a completely different career it wouldn't have been such a big issue.  It's not that he quit, it's that he quit to work for the competition.

Quite simply, if he had a problem with Jon he should not have taken the job in the first place.  If he discovered he didn't want to work for Jon after beginning work, fine, quit and step aside.  That's all above board and no one would have a big problem.  

At this point the only fair/honest/right thing to do would be to get out of the LG race until the primary is over.  Then it's a new season and no one will give him any grief for finding a new employer.

Does the Beneson Group?  Tortured sports metaphors are nice and all, and so are broad generalizations, but how about publishing what's actually in his contract?

specific contract arrangements in this case.  

My point was more general - that in many employment situations the employee is certainly allowed to quit, but is constrained in some manner from directly working against his/her former employer for a period of time.  There are both business and ethical reasons for this - which I generally agree with.

Contractually he may be allowed to do what he did.  I really don't know the details of his contract so I can't directly address them.  But whether he can legally do what he did or not really misses the point.  To use a term from an earlier commenter, this is "shady" at best.  And certainly not a professional way of conducting business.

I don't know if there was a written contract either, but does it make Pete's decision any more or less binding just because he gave them his word, rather than signing a piece of paper?  I would think certainly not from an ethical standpoint.  Probably something for the lawyers to debate.  

The more I read about Pete, the more I wonder why he cares at all about a down ballot race in VA anyway, much less get involved in a controversy like this.  He is the rock star of pollsters right now.  He probably wishes he never heard of bowerbank or JW, and certainly wishes he hadn't had to take that call from Kaine about his recent decisions.

Why's it written explicitly into so many different contracts?

Anyway I'm sorry, but because this post was long on innuendo but short on facts, I went and looked at the SBE's webpage to see if there was any record of Brodnitz having been paid to get an idea of when he started working (if his employment ever did extend to more than just a press-release) and I happened to see just how much money you're taking every month because you're listed at the top of the form.  I hope you'll understand that as someone who is not being paid by either campaign, I don't feel like it's fair for me to feel outraged because two guys being paid a combined $5,000/mo. by an interested party tell me I should feel outraged without providing any details so that I can reach an independent conclusion for myself.  Particularly if they admit they don't have access to many of the details salient to the matter at hand.

I can already go to Not Larry Sabato for that sort of thing.

that's what you want to see.  We are 100% sure about what we're saying.  Don't believe us?  Call Pete Brodnitz and ask him.  As to how much we're being paid, what possible relevance does that have?  You mean, if we were only getting paid $1,000 per month, or $2,000 per month or whatever, you'd feel better?  Frankly, I'd report the same story if I weren't getting paid a penny, it's that solid (e.g., I've heard the voice mail recording where Brodnitz apologetically says he's switching campaigns).

...are you saying there was a contract?

If so, you've probably got a breach case - if not, then you're  implying something that isn't true.

If there was no contract, how much contact was there? This "advising" that he was doing - are we supposed to believe that the campaign was paying you and Lowell $5k a month, but Tim Kaine and Jim Webb's pollster is giving free advice?

Seriously, what you're implying about this is a hell of an accusation, and neither you nor Lowell has provided any evidence of a contract or, absent a contract, any evidence that there was some real commitment or close relationship between Bowerbank's campaign and Brodnitz.

First, Virginia employment law strongly disfavors restraints on trade, such as covenants not to compete (see Omniplex World Services Corp. v. U.S. Investigation Services, 618 S.E. 2d 340 (Va. 2005)). That noted, one would probably have been enforceable here because of the uniquely direct competition, limited geographic scope, and relatively short duration. Shame on the Bowerbank folks for not demanding that of their pollster.

Second, I think you'd need to establish that fees were collected by Brodnitz, and there was a contract of any kind between him and the campaign before any wrongdoing on Brodnitz's part can be accused.

Third, I don't really see how it's Jody Wagner's fault that things broke down between Brodnitz and the Bowerbank camp. You can't very well fault her for wanting an A-list roster, and I would be very surprised if she (or Gov. Kaine) was personally behind Brodnitz's departure. There are a wealth of good pollsters and Virginia is one of the few states with any serious races in 2009.

That's not the issue, but obviously you are just here to question everything we say and to throw out red herrings everywhere.  Why else, for instance, would you make a completely unsubstantiated (and laughable) allegation like "things broke down between Brodnitz and the Bowerbank camp."  Nothing could be further from the truth, things were going fine, so why would you say that and what are you basing it on?  Also, you do realize how absurd it is for us to be arguing with someone who comments on a blog under a pseudonym and who presumably knows nothing about what went down here?  In contrast, Eric and I blog under our real names and are totally open about who we're working for, how much we're getting paid, etc.  So much easier hurl false charges from behind your cloak of anonymity, eh?

things broke down between the Bowerbank campaign and the pollster? Primarily because the campaign said he is their pollster, and now the understanding is that he is not the pollster. A breakdown doesn't necessarily mean a Moran/Seacrest incident. Since Brodnitz's tenure ended earlier than I would imagine either party contemplated when he was brought aboard, then I think "breakdown" is a fair term, and that's what I was "basing it on". I intended no implication of acrimony.

Also, you do realize how absurd it is for us to be arguing with someone who comments on a blog under a pseudonym and who presumably knows nothing about what went down here?  In contrast, Eric and I blog under our real names and are totally open about who we're working for, how much we're getting paid, etc.  So much easier hurl false charges from behind your cloak of anonymity, eh?

This is just bizarre, to say nothing of old hat. Unless you intend to call out the multitude of posters here who post under a pseudonym, many of whom have done so in this diary, then your complaint strikes me as absurd.

Of course, most of them don't find themselves as at odds with your stances as I do, so that may be why you've chosen to get up in arms about my blogging anonymously...

I think the evidence that things have broken down is right here in this post, where you're trying to nuke the guy for taking another job.

If things hadn't broken down, there would be no reason for this discussion, because you all would still be happy little campaign you claim to have been before Brodnitz broke your hearts.

Get over it. Hire a new pollster. If what you say about Brodnitz is true, then good riddance, right?

As I read this, isn't the bowerbank campaign's real issue with Brodnitz?  I assume that since they announced in a release that he was their pollster that they have met with him, and there was an offer & acceptance for work.  I think it is also a safe assumption they may have shared some strategy or private info with him since that meeting, and that also adds to their concern.

I follow VA politics, but I admit I had to google Pete Brodnitz.  Pollsters aren't household names for me, even though I believe a good one can make the difference in winning and losing a race.  Given their role in a campaign, I do think having your pollster leave to a competitor is significant.  It wouldn't mean much if I left my job for a competitor, but if our VP of Strategic Development did, it would create a very difficult working environment for a while, and potentially ruin the company.

At the end of the day, bowerbank will hire another top level pollster and he/she (along with Pete for JW) will make lots of money telling their candidates what we are thinking.  I doubt we'll ever see Pete comment on this blog, or any other, but I wish a print journalist would ask him why he chose this path.  Just to see if some of that sunlight we're always talking about in the blogosphere would help with this discussion.  Then there could be a discussion on whether or not JW made a strategic play for Pete, and the ethics of that could also be discussed.  

 

Did Brodnitz have a contract with the campaign? Had he polled for the campaign? Had he been paid by the campaign?

Assuming that he wouldn't have polled or been paid unless he had a contract, then you all should have him on breach of contract. If not, then you got a bunch of free advice from him and and, not having been paid or received a contract, he went elsewhere.

Also, pollsters don't usually get involved in fighting with former or almost-was clients - so we're not likely to hear Brodnitz' side of this story. How do we know that he didn't make his choice for good reasons but is too much of a professional or gentleman to make them public?

All we have is your word as a paid Bowerbank flak that Brodnitz did something dishonorable.  

I've noticed a few of the comments directed at Lowell and myself are calling for the smoking gun.  Well, I'm not at liberty to disclose all I know right now, but I'm happy point everyone in the right direction.

Contact Pete Brodnitz.  Ask him if he agreed to work for the Bowerbank campaign in May of this year.  Ask him why he quit the Bowerbank campaign.   Ask him who is new employer is.  

Contact Jody Wagner.  Ask her who will be doing polling for her.  Ask her if she'd seen the press release from last week, before this went down, that clearly stated Brodnitz was working for the Bowerbank campaign.

Simple, isn't it?  

And after you do so, please post your findings here on RK where we can all compare and contrast their given answers to the voice messages we have regarding this situation.  That should prove very interesting indeed.

"We make the allegations, you go disprove 'em"?!?

Not exactly the most compelling argument.

We are 100% sure about our story, we've got a digital voice mail recording (which we'd prefer not to release), and you can call Pete Brodnitz if you STILL don't believe us.  Of course, the question in my mind is why you're so inclined to distrust us, why you're spending so much time on this subject (you don't comment very often, but this one seems to have gotten you excited for some reason or other), and why you won't do a little checking if you're so dubious. If you have all this time to be posting here, you could spend the same time and call Pete Brodnitz.

You're not 100% sure of anything. You haven't answered the question about a contract. In the thread above, Eric claims that Brodnitz has been paid by the Bowerbank campaign - we can find $9k for you and $6k for Eric on VPAP but there's no evidence of money being paid to Brodnitz. Are you seriously arguing that Brodnitz has been working for the campaign for free?

If he's been working for the campaign since May, why doesn't he show up on the June 30 disclosure forms?

Is 3-month old voice mail the best you can do? Maybe he left because he hasn't got a contract and he hasn't been paid.

Why is the Bowerbank campaign doing so much whining about this when the last voice mail they have from the guy is 3 months old, he has no contract, and has never been paid?

And you're threatening to release a private voice mail because some commenters on a blog don't believe you?

It sounds to me like there has been miscommunication between the Bowerbank campaign and Brodnitz - and based on a 3-month old email, Bowerbank did a press release with Brodnitz in it. You should have talked to him about the release first - if you're putting him in a press release and not talking to him about it, then the egg on your face is your own.

with that wildly inaccurate guess.  The VM is recent, within days recent.  Just goes to prove you have no idea what you're talking about.  

Stop guessing and just go ask them as I suggested.  See if they give a different story.  If so, we'll be happy to take the next steps to show that what we said did happen.  

Or are you afraid of what you'll find out?

and stir up doubt in our credibility among readers.  Obviously, this incident hit a MAJOR raw nerve with somebody (or more than one somebody), why else would two variants of the same pseudonym be spending a great deal of their time on this specific story?  Fascinating...

I don't know who redsoxkangaroo is, nor do I have any affiliation with the Wagner campaign or, for that matter, any campaign. Moreover, while I am leaning in Wagner's direction, I find nothing objectionable (thus far) about Jon Bowerbank and am quite pleased with his level of energy, enthusiasm, and that he's a rural Democrat, something we need more of.

While I don't doubt your honesty for a moment, I do think there may be more to this story than we're hearing, and the lack of any disbursements to the pollster in question is a good starting point.

issue.  Anything else your keen journalistic nose tells you might be out there?  Again, you can always call Pete Brodnitz and do a little investigating if you're so curious.

I've never had, just experience working with campaigns. If we assume that there was no retainer, then there was probably a contract, right? Surely you can share that much information with this anonymous blog commenter.

definition of a contract, then yes:

A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law. Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept).[1] Breach of contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. Almost everyone enters into contracts every day. Sometimes written contracts are required, such as when buying a house.[2] However, most contracts can be and are made orally, like buying a law textbook, or purchasing coffee at a shop. Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).

According to legal scholar Sir John William Salmond, a contract is "an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties".

So I suppose this oral contract had some sort of term? Like you've got some phone message that says, "Yeah, I'll be your unpaid pollster until such time as you decide to do a poll, and I'll never go work for anyone else that you're running against, even if I haven't gotten any payment?"

I mean, seriously... do you have a contract with the campaign, Lowell? Or is a verbal contract good enough for you?

Any you haven't addressed the issue of payment, except to argue that some pollsters only get paid when they poll. But since there's no contract and no payment, apparently Brodnitz was supposed to give you advice and sit around until such time as you all decided to do a poll?

I have a verbal contract, and yes that's "good enough" for me. Thanks for your concern, though! :)

the statute of frauds makes it difficult to enforce oral agreements. A basic rule of enforcability of contracts is that there needs to be consideration, which is to say that if I agree to do XYZ, you agree to act, refrain from acting, or compensate me in some manner. If Bowerbank's folks hammer out these details with Benenson, then they might have a legitimate (if tough to enforce) beef with Brodnitz. Otherwise, I think it's a non-issue.

Since we're not going to agree on this, and I think we've both made ourselves clear, I'm content to leave this as an agreement to disagree. I'm sure that after the 2009 primary, we'll both be voting for the same candidate, and maybe even before then.

on something! :)

"I'm sure that after the 2009 primary, we'll both be voting for the same candidate, and maybe even before then."

looking at this from different points of view.  

At this point I'm not aware of any plans for legal action.  What Lowell and I are arguing is about integrity and ethics of those involved and what (or who) caused this situation to evolve as it did.

You and others have doubts about what we say happened and that's fair.  But if it did go down this way, there is certainly some highly questionable behavior on the pollster's part.  And the big unknown at this point is if anyone else was involved.  That could be significant as well.

voice mail?  I'm talking about a 3-DAY-old voicemail, and I'm telling you to call Brodnitz and ask him for yourself if you don't believe us.

As to why Brodnitz was in a press release, that's because he had agreed to be part of the Bowerbank campaign, had started working with Bowerbank, etc.  But we've already said all that, and you don't believe us, so why bother repeating it?

A voice mail. Three days old or three months old, who care? No contract, no payment.

Why wasn't he getting paid if he was doing work since May? Hell, if I'd been working since may with no payment, I'd leave too.

...pollsters don't normally take retainers. One long-time political operative I talked to said, "there are tons of good pollsters out there, if one demanded a retainer they'd never get hired."

Pollsters normally are not paid on a monthly salaried or retainer basis.  Instead, once pollsters agree to work on a campaign, they are expected to give advice, participate in message and strategy and generally be part of the campaign. Payment is on an "as-need" basis, and normally comes later in the campaign.  A major benchmark poll can earn a pollster around $40,000. Focus groups cost around $50,000 for a set of six, and are paid for as they are completed.  Etc., etc.  The bottom line is that pollsters are paid when their services are utilized, not before.

This is all standard operating procedure from what I've been told.  Which means, of course, that just because a pollster isn't paid in the early weeks/months of a campaign, that does NOT mean they aren't on board the campaign.  Pollsters know this, as do campaigns; again, this is the standard arrangement. Early on in campaigns, pollsters know that their type of research is not usually being done. They get on board, however, knowing that their payday will come down the road.  They fully understand that campaigns will not pay them for anything but product -- to do so would be a waste of money and besides, once the campaigns gear up and polling research is needed, they also know they will make very good money for limited days of work.  That's why pollsters don't mind not being paid for the first few months, even though they are offering general advice and counsel.

Pretty interesting, huh?

This is probably immaterial to the subject at hand, but there are plenty of pollsters who collect retainers. Most of those who collect retainers are intimately involved in strategy and often serve as the general consultant. Here, I'm guessing that Jarding & Co. are taking on the role of general consultant, so that could explain the lack of any payments being made.

That noted, I would always advise written contracts explicitly spelling out the terms of the consultancy.

Seriously, we've laid out a number of points about what happened and a few people have questioned those points.  That's fair and I take no issue with someone questioning this, especially since Lowell and I are paid by the Bowerbank campaign.

So what I'm saying is don't take our word for it.  We've made our statements about what went down, the next step to any real exploration of this matter is to ask the "other side" what happened from their point of view.  

After we have statements from both sides, we need to see how well they match.  If they are perfectly in sync, then there should be little question about what happened.  If they are not, then each side must introduce further evidence to back up their statements.  If no such evidence exists, then it does boil down to a "he said she said" situation.  As I mentioned above, we do have more, so we're ready for the next step should it come to that.

But lets see what the other side has to say and then take the next steps from there.

The next post by "Red Sox" or some variant of that pseudonym will be "why should I have to do anything, you're the one who made the charges so YOU have to prove them, blah blah blah."  

some variation of that quote, minus the infantile "blah blah blah" was implied in my previous response to Eric.

Do you believe it unreasonable to expect those who make charges to back them up? It's a fair position, I guess, just not one I would agree with.

n/t

would you agree with me that if one makes an accusation, that it is incumbent on the person making the charge to substantiate it, rather than the responsibility of those who question the accusation?

I don't doubt that there is a tightrope to be walked in your shoes, since you have bona fide campaign strategies to keep in confidence, but I hope you understand that when two paid consultants to a campaign take issue with something related to the race, many of us will require more than "because I said so" as evidence.

Be a journalist since you're so interested in this story, call the guy and ask him.  We have NOTHING to hide and everything to gain by you doing so.

why I have to do the fact checking for your allegation.

confident in what we're saying and certainly don't need to prove it to some anonymous blog commenter.  If you have doubts, and since apparently you are very concerned about this story, you're free to pick up your phone and dial Pete Brodnitz.  His office contact info is here. Let us know how it goes! :)

stance is that as long as you say so, you need not provide any evidence of your allegation, or at least don't need to do so because I use a pseudonym (like a whole bunch of your other posters). Certainly your right, and like I said, you owe me nothing, but I hope you also understand that few people believe it to be their responsibility to disprove an unsourced allegation. I certainly don't believe it to be so.

In any event, since our ballots probably always look the same in the fall, I just chalk this one up to a difference of opinion with someone who fights the good fight.

Recordings of private conversations?  Well, sorry, they weren't made, but there were multiple witnesses to Pete's agreement with the Bowerbank campaign to work for them.  Again, you are welcome to call Pete Brodnitz and ask him for his side of the story; in fact, I strongly encourage you to do so and to report back what you find out.  Thanks.

That's why I'm saying someone other than us should approach Brodnitz and Wagner and ask them.  Don't take our "I said so" - get a statement from the other side to see if there is even a disagreement.  Who knows, maybe they won't disagree with what we've said here.

Hint, hint!

Did he ever get paid or not? Was he under contract or not?

You said upthread that he got paid, but it's not on VPAP, and the best evidence you seem to suggest you have that there was any agreement is a 3-month-old voice mail - not a contract.

No contract, no check - so I'm guessing you're full of it about him getting paid.

is that they get paid when they actually conduct a poll.  As we've said many times, Brodnitz had an agreement with the Bowerbank campaign to be its pollster.  Don't believe us, CALL PETE BRODNITZ AND ASK HIM!  My god, why is this so hard?

But Benenson Strategy Group is not some local yokel polling outfit. Almost every national pollster I've worked with has either had a contract or a retainer, and often both. Maybe that's not the case here, but you guys saying so isn't enough. Nor is it enough to demand that others substantiate your claims. Perhaps you don't care about credibility in the eyes of others, and you certainly owe me nothing, but I know I would have an easier time believing the entirety of this diary and the subsequent comments by you and Eric, if you were backing these charges up with evidence.

I realize that as consultants, you are probably privy to substantial pieces of information that you just can't share publicly. And I understand the delicate balance you need to reach. But if I accuse you of something, it's incumbent on me to prove it, not to ask others to make phone calls and other such inquiries to disprove it. Do you agree?

We've provided about as much information as we can at the moment.  More details are available and very well may surface.    For the moment though, we've made an honest effort to provide as many facts as we can as accurately as we can.  Given what we know, both first hand and direct second hand from very trusted friends/associates, we feel this is as bad as it looks.

However, as you point out, we have not yet produced hard evidence such as a signed contract or record of payment - so there is valid reason to question our account.

We're arguing back and forth over whether Brodnitz agreed to work for Bowerbank and what kind of agreement it was.  We've stated our opinion of that agreement so the next logical step would be to simply ask Brodnitz himself what he thought he agreed to (or didn't).

Lets not go down the road of us arguing one situation and you (and others) arguing that we haven't proven it, when none of us know if Brodnitz will agree with what we've said.  If he denies it, we've got something to argue about.  If he accepts it we're wasting our time.  So lets find out.

Then the next question is whether or not Lowell or I should contact him.  If this were an independent investigation the answer would be yes.  But it's not.  We're clearly not the right ones to be interviewing Brodnitz or Wagner about what they did or didn't do.  Obviously you don't have to do it - but given that you've taken a position counter to ours it makes more sense that you, or someone in a similar position, approach them.  If we called you'd have to take our word for it... again.  It's much better if an independent, or even pro-Wagner person contacts them.

Then the fun really begins as we iron out the differences and look for stronger proof.  

Who have you worked for? and what's up with the Devil Rays this year?

I've worked on a number of gubernatorial, senatorial, and house races, though I've opted for a more steady paycheck these days.

As for the Rays (the team fines any of the players who now include "Devil" when mentioning the team name), they spent years playing Moneyball. They were constantly building their own system with talented, cost-controlled youngsters, while forcing contenders into pennies-on-the-dollar trades at the trading deadline (witness the Zambrano for Kazmir trade with NYM). Now with Kazmir anchoring a strong rotation with Garza, Jackson, et al., to say nothing of the skills of Carl Crawford and Evan Longoria, they're a legit contender.

i think someone forgot to tell them that that division belongs to the Yanks & Sox.  

To be honest, I am glad to see the model working.  It is frustrating to see your favorite team experiencing the same failure for the same reason.  Maybe Cashman will try something new.  I'm a throwback to the "Donnie ballgame" days.  Mattingly was my favorite.  

This Brodnitz thing is unusual.  Do you know him?  I've never met him, but his work is impressive.  I can see why Bowerbank is upset over losing him.  I can't figure out why he had such a change of heart right after the press release, unless TK put the heat on him.  

Either way, once the VP is announced no one will remember this.  I think it might be Bayh tomorrow morning.

though I am familiar with his firm.

If it's Bayh, we'll know by tomorrow, I think.

Cashman made a smart investment in the farm, though Hughes looks like he might be a bust, and Joba is now making the dreaded visit to Birmingham to visit with Dr. Andrews.