In the Right

In both states, the outsiders urging a more positive campaign do so out of fear that without positive messaging, their favored candidate will lose.

In both states, the Republican candidate has been leading for most, or all, of the summer months, and continues to do so into the fall.

But there are two glaring differences between the two states -- in Virginia, the candidate on whom positive messaging is being urged has trailed all summer long, while in New Jersey, the candidate on whom the positive messaging is being urged has led all summer long; second, in Virginia, the favored candidate on whom positive messaging is being urged is the Democrat, while in New Jersey, the favored candidate on whom positive messaging is being urged is the Republican.

Odd, no?

Is it because Virginia Democrats are all gentlemen and ladies, and are horrified at the negative campaign their candidate is running? Or, conversely, is it because New Jersey Republicans are all gentlemen and ladies, and are horrified at the negative campaign their candidate is running?

Yes, Virginians are gentlemen and ladies. They hang out at steeplechases.

And New Jersey has its share of gentlemen and ladies -- Far Hills is home to the United States Golf Association, whose executive director, David B. Fay, is featured every year on NBC's telecast of the U.S. Open golf championship wearing his trademark bow tie.

But both states also have their rougher characters. In Virginia, for instance, you can find them at shad plankings; in New Jersey, you can find them in Asbury Park.

So, no, the explanation for the similar behavior by different groups of people isn't that.

The explanation is simple -- in Virginia, the gap between the two candidates is widening, and the Republican's lead is growing; in New Jersey, by contrast, the gap between the two candidates is narrowing, and the Republican's lead is shrinking.

But the campaign decision-makers are privy to information the outsiders aren't.

They know exactly how much money they have in the bank, and they know exactly how much money they're going to have to be able to spend in the remaining days of the campaign.

They know exactly what resources they're going to deploy, and when, and they have a pretty good idea what resources the other side has, and when they're going to deploy them, too.

And, perhaps most importantly, because they're the only ones with the money to spend on sophisticated polling operations (the kind of polls that are far more sophisticated than the public polls conducted by universities and media organizations), they know with far greater specificity than we outsiders what messages are moving targeted voter groups -- come to think of it, they know with far greater specificity what are the voter groups they've targeted in their strategies to reach the threshold for victory.

So, if the campaign decision-makers have better information, better intelligence, what's the problem?

In a word, arrogance -- in four words, the arrogance of knowledge.

Knowing what you know -- and knowing that the guys who are outside the campaign, demanding that you change your strategy, do not know the same things you know -- makes it very, very easy to think you have all the answers, and makes it very, very easy to shrug off the complaints from outside.

It takes a very strong character on the inside of a campaign to maintain the tunnel-vision discipline necessary for victory; but it takes a very, very strong character on the inside of a campaign to be willing to listen to counsel from outsiders who don't have the same information you do.

Follow me on Twitter!