The George Santos Debacle: How To Keep The Democratic Researchers’s Failures From Happening Again.

So how does a guy like George Santos, a blatant serial LIAR, get elected? And how did Hershel Walker, another blatant serial LIAR, get so close?

It’s the voters’s fault…right? Umm…no. It’s not.

Some people cite the hardening of partisanship into two distinctive unbreachable camps as the reason for the election results. To paraphrase from the movie This is Where I Leave You, ”you two are idiots but you’re my idiots”. So as they explain it, no matter how bad your own party candidate is, the other party’s candidate is worse. Even if they aren’t.

To others, it’s because voters believe that ALL politicians lie. So since everyone lies, it’s OKAY to vote for a known liar.

While there may be some merit to these reasons, I think the real impact of these two beliefs is overstated.

To me, the real reason for Santos’s election victory, and Walker’s near victory, is the failure of Democrats to understand the nuts and bolts of how to conduct political investigations into non-officer holder (Bio) candidates, and also how to educate the voters on who these people REALLY ARE in a way that resonates with the voter.

It’s About Mindset

I conducted case preparation investigations for attorneys from 1988 thru 2019, and political investigations for Democratic candidates and interest groups in hundreds of races from 2002 thru 2019.

I think of the voters in a race just as I do a judge or jury in a case. The voter as trier of fact. And just like a judge or jury, voters NEED TO BE CONVINCED by a preponderance of information (evidence in trial prep investigations) to vote for one candidate OVER another.

In 2013, Professional Investigator Magazine asked me to write a feature piece to help professional investigators interested in specializing in conducting political investigations how to do so called, Creating a Specialty: Investigating for Political Candidates. And in 2014, my piece Politics is Dirty Business. I Ought to Know: Confessions of a Political Private Eye, was the cover story of Politico Magazine’s very first issue.

I also ran for the New Mexico House of Representatives in 2004. My district was heavily GOP. Despite that, thanks to my investigation skills and messaging, I earned a significant amount of crossover votes from independents and Republicans. Far more from those voters in my district than did either the Democratic candidate for President, or for the US House of Representatives.

I retired from conducting investigations at the end of 2019. These days, I provide litigation investigation training to law firms, and political investigation training to Democratic oriented political organizations. And I teach small to medium sized businesses how to conduct internal investigations to lessen their risk of workplace violence.

Focusing on the Wrong Things Hurts

Democrats prioritize many things in an election cycle. Candidate investigations is not one of them. Instead they focus on:

• Finding another JFK. (Cult of personality).
• Demographics is destiny. Young and minority voters will win it for us. (If you stereotype them by age and race).
• Lawsuits to block candidates from running. Keep them off the ballot—though this seldom works.
• Lawsuits to block voting laws from impacting elections. Already behind the 8 ball once those bills became law.
• Voter turnout methods. This is good…when successful.
• Polling for issues to run on. The absolute worst. If you don’t know what matters to your potential voters you shouldn’t be running.

I’m not saying these focuses are completely wrong. Some have their place. But, what’s missing here? GIVING THE VOTER A REASON TO VOTE for your candidate over the other candidate.

So where do candidate investigations for Democrat campaigns often factor in?

As an afterthought.

In 2010 Democrats across the country shifted election infrastructure from local operations to DC and to beltway consultants. All politics used to be local. In 2010, at least for Democrats, that came to a screeching halt.

And instead of investigators, “op-researchers” became a thing.
Not licensed investigators. In fact, not investigators at all. Campaign “consultants”. Consultants who provide their checklist driven research to campaign pollsters, who also didn’t understand what drives local voters.

So Why Is That a Problem?

Experience matters. Understanding where and how to find usable records and people willing to go on camera matters.

Information is a tool. Knowing how to use information to influence people’s decisions matters.

I remember back in 2010, I got a call from the DC based “op-research” consultants who had been working for many months on a gubernatorial campaign. Early voting had already started, and they were still having trouble locating information on the local level.

The people who got hired to do the work I did for almost all the candidates in the state wanted to pay me for an hour of my time to teach them how to do the work.

Ok. That was a bit snarky. But you get the point. These were not experienced investigators. When we met, it was clear that they did not know the ins and outs of finding information. Their candidate lost. Handily.

Candidate Investigations Are Not One Size Fits All

So where did the Democratic researchers fail regarding Santos?

They failed to understand how to research a “bio” candidate. A first time candidate with no office holder record. They run on the strength of their bio.One tailored, on paper at least, to be attractive to voters.

The way you uncover the lies with a bio candidate is to go through each item of his bio, and try to verify it. Don't shy away from the most powerful things on his resume. It's far more effective than going after low hanging, low impact fruit.

He says he worked for Goldman Sachs. Pick up the phone and call them. Dates of hire, and last date of employment. Eligible for rehire?

Simple stuff. Wait, you have no record of him working there? Now you've got something started. Now go and find the why behind the lie.

Brazil? Didn't live in the states for a long time. Figure out what you don't know, and what you need to know to look for. And then FIND someone LOCAL who does!!!!!

As a professional investigator, I'd focus on finding someone local who could fill in the blanks. Maybe call someone from the World Association of Detectives. But, even just calling or emailing a local reporter can get you all kinds of information—like that the candidate fled from criminal charges for theft.

Keep going after the strongest elements of his resume. The things that he touts the most because they think the voters will respond to those and vote for him. 

And then, once you gone through all of the information, don’t just drip, drip, drip info in a piecemeal way. That was part of the problem with how the Democrats handled Hershel Walker’s info—the voters only hear one thing when you do it that way, and one thing isn’t enough to cause someone to change their mind.

Build a case with the strongest info. So that the weight of the info is enough to convince the voter to say no.

Many years ago, I was brought in to conduct research on a Republican candidate for State Attorney General. He was a decorated military pilot, an FBI agent, and tough on crime federal prosecutor…the kind of candidate that people want for attorney general.
Until he wasn’t. My research breaking down his lies and misstatements led to an ad that became know as “Bibbs Fibs”. And he lost.

Like what you’ve read. Check out my book The Everyday Detective: Harness the Power of Information to protect yourself, your family, your money, and your home.