Distinguish and Define. Candidates have to resonate with their target audience, and stand out among the people they are appealing to, namely voters. For example, my candidate Councilman Eric Ulrich separated himself from the pack as the only candidate opposed to closing Rikers Island, opposed to congestion pricing, and supporting Amazon. He took these positions without equivocation, qualification or hedging. He was talking about these issues on the trail, published an op-ed supporting Amazon, and used the first debate to re-establish these points. When the news of Amazon’s pullout leaked out, he was all over the city, armed with proof of his positions and staying on his message rather than pretending to have been for it or against it at some point in time. The message resonated with the 20% of New York City’s voters who identify as conservative to right, and with moderates who want job growth. With 17 different candidates in the race it made a huge difference. For proof, just look at the results in Long Island City, a place where Eric had no prior geographic nexus. AD/ED 37/19 and 38/80, the two election districts in the heart of the Amazon zone, Eric Ulrich won convincingly with 40% and 30% of the vote respectively.

The winner, Jumaane Williams, clearly distinguished himself from the other candidates as well. He stood out from the outset. Having just run in the primary for Lieutenant Governor, he was the only candidate who had actually received a vote outside his own local district. While others talked about President Trump, Jumaane Williams had already been broadcast across the city as having gotten arrested protesting Trump’s policies. Jumaane reinforced this message with those images, and in a City that is more anti-Trump than anything else, Jumaane Williams stood out.

Field Operations. Whether political parties, fiercely active local politicians or local activist organizations, boots on the ground are key. In these non-partisan special elections without a D or R label to telegraph to voters, the electorate must reckon with issues and personalities more, namely the people who are running. Field troops are the first line of direct engagement with voters. Eric Ulrich benefitted from all five Republican County Organizations, and popular local politicians like Joe Borelli and Mike Reilly in Staten Island (Eric even won Staten Island’s North Shore which is not Republican territory). Jumaane Williams activated the Working Families Party, and its related organizations. Enough said on that, those field operations speak for themselves. Other left-of-center candidates never really had a chance.

Newspaper endorsements still matter. Or, failing to get these endorsements matter. Either way, in a low turnout special election, only engaged voters tend to pay attention. And only engaged voters care what the editorial pages say, and notice who gets or doesn’t get the endorsement. It’s up to the candidates to explain to the unengaged voters who may still vote why these endorsements matter. This is where the top two candidates had the most in common. For Eric Ulrich, appealing to moderate voters meant getting the endorsements of NY’s main tabloids the Daily News and the New York Post. Not getting them would have been disaster. Republicans would have written him off as a non-serious candidate and moderates would have ignored everything else he was saying.

Jumaane Williams got the NY Times endorsement in his race for Lt. Governor in September, and failing to get it less than six months later would have been his disaster. But he got that endorsement, and it wasn’t tepid. It essentially defined him as the Public Advocate without the title (which was ‘conveniently’ his campaign slogan). If you are an engaged voter on the Democratic side, that’s all you really needed to know. Those who were on the fence or inclined to support another Democrat, got the ‘cover’ they needed from this endorsement.

Create the right ‘identity’ for your identity politics. One of the bigger surprises in this race was the distant third place finish of the former City Council Speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito. She was the City Council Speaker for four years (very recently), which made her one of the most powerful people in the City. She had already lead the city, had citywide accomplishments and made a lot of things happen during her tenure. However, her campaign was silent on these facts. Her “Fix the MTA” ballot line only called attention to what an engaged voter (the targets in this election) perceived as one of her failings as Council Speaker (and something the Public Advocate can do little about). Her appeal as leading female candidate fell flat when on the debate stage she introduced herself as a ‘bitch’ rather than what she actually was to most people on the stage — their ‘boss.’

Understand the difference between making ‘noise’ and getting people to ‘listen.’ Donald Trump (59 million twitter followers) and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes (3.4 million followers), or anyone named Kardashian are the exceptions, not the rule. Whatever they do or say is instant news, and for better or for worse, everyone is talking about them. We can explain those phenomena another time. The average NYC politician, or someone who has achieved the lofty “blue check” of social media verification, still has to work to get noticed, and translate their “fame” into actual votes, or recognition. And just because you can afford it (because your campaign received matching funds), doesn’t mean that anyone pays attention to your TV ads when they are running the same time as all the other candidates (and basically saying the same thing).

Nowadays, you have to identify who your voters are, or could be, and translate that into recognition and eventual action. A fame seeking television ad won’t accomplish that. Intense voter id and contact, along with hyper-technical digital targeting, with short succinct messages are way more effective than television ads. Our campaign made a conscious decision not to go on the air, in favor of shorter clips and digital targeting. Television ads have their place, like an attack ad, or ads that clearly set someone apart as was the case for front-runner Jumaane Williams’ or Mayor de Blasio’s famous “Dante” ad in 2013. They are also useful in a race with a small number of candidates. But in this election, they made no sense for most of the candidates, and the results proved that.

The two biggest lessons from this election is that issues and process matter. Execute well on both and the cream will rise to the top. The top two spots that is.

Menashe Shapiro is the founder of the Shapiro Consulting Group and served as the communications director for Eric Ulrich’s Public Advocate Campaign “EricForNYC.” Previously, he served as a Managing Director for Research at Tusk Strategies and Tusk Ventures where he led the media and telecommunications practice.

But Democrats have another significant flaw: they fall in love with results. They overplay their hands, all the time, and always believe that past performance will surely indicate future results.

Consider last night:

Democrats won the New Jersey Governorship (Phil Murphy) and the Virginia Governorship (Ralph Northam)- the only two governorships up for election in this off-year. Both races can easily be defined as repudiations of President Trump.

In New York, suburban voters in Nassau County (Laura Curran) and Westchester County (George Latimer) both elected new Democratic county executives. Both counties are perceived as moderate, swing areas and they both went for Democrats.

And of course, Bill de Blasio, despite the albatross of multiple criminal investigations into his fundraising, easily put away his Republican opponent to become the first Democrat to be reelected as mayor of New York City since Ed Koch in 1985.

Democrats are already celebrating, and divvying up the would-be spoils of mid-term victory in 2018. In New York, the left-leaning Working Families Party sent out an email at midnight entitled “this is what a wave looks like.” And this morning, numerous candidates for 2018 have already sent out fundraising notes, hoping to build on this surge of anti-Trump momentum.

But now let’s consider 2001 (a comparable year for a new Republican president) for a minute:

In 2001, Democrats were desperately trying to find their way after losing their grip on the White House to George W. Bush. His tax cuts frustrated them, his long summer vacation had them questioning his work ethic, and his empowerment of the religious right even helped the Democrats flip the Senate into the control of Tom Daschle.

Then 9/11 happened and everyone fell in line behind the commander-in-chief — or so it seemed.

In November however, Democrats swept all the offices they swept yesterday. Democrat Mark Warner, took the Virginia governorship, as did Democrat Jim McGreevey in New Jersey. Democrat Tom Suozzi won the Nassau county executive race (ending decades of Republican control) and Democrat Andrew Spano won in Westchester County as well.

Yes, Michael Bloomberg, running as a Republican, won in a New York City still reeling from the 9/11 attacks, but Bloomberg defied political logic then as he does now. (Also let’s be real, he was supported by Mayor Giuliani when Rudy was at the peak of his popularity in the city and nationally, which was a big factor).

Then after this “Democratic wave” in 2001, look what happened: Republicans regained control of the US Senate in 2002 midterms, held the House of Representatives (even gained seats) and kept a Republican in the New York Governor’s mansion. George W. Bush rode that wave to reelection in 2004.

In other words, the 2001 wave did not dawn a Democratic resurgence in 2002 nor 2004.

Why not?

Experts will tell you that two wars played a role, Republican scare tactics on homeland security played a role, and social wedge issues like marriage equality played a role. None of these factors are in play today, which should make it easier for Democrats.

While all that may be true, there are still some crucial factors that Democrats yesterday and today still seem to be ignoring. There continues to be a lack of focus on what voters (those who are not like them) really want.

In 2001 after flipping the Senate internally, Democrats lost sight of securing that victory at the ballot box in 2002. Their lack of focus on the mood of the country and local issues led a Republican with military deferments (Saxby Chambliss) to defeat a decorated incumbent Democratic Vietnam war hero (Max Cleland) in Georgia. This exact scenario repeated itself in 2004 when Bush defeated Kerry. Simply serving with distinction proved to be “not enough” in each case despite a national mood of military reverance.

With this history as a guide, Democrats would be wise to heed the three “Ls.” (Listen, Local, and Lazy) for 2018 and beyond.

1. LISTEN to the electorate.
2. All politics is LOCAL.
3. Don’t be LAZY.

LISTEN: Democrats tend to do way more talking and not enough listening. Educating the public is a favorite Democratic pastime. Democrats assume everyone everywhere wants to hear their “correct” take on everything. But there is a big difference between Park Slope and Yellowstone National Park. The issues are different, the concerns are different. It is why those of us who grew up with Trump and believed him to be a joke, underestimated those who didn’t grow up in the same city with him. We couldn’t understand why small-town folks gave him a chance despite all evidence that it was, and is, a bad idea. You need to listen to people, all people, even in so-called Trump areas, to connect with them.

LOCAL: Tip O’Neill said it — and it is true today, “All politics is local.” Folks care about the pothole on the corner more than what happens in the situation room. We can complain about that all we want, but people care about what they personally can perceive. And if their representative, the incumbent, takes care of THEIR problems, they will return him/her to office, regardless of bigger issues. There is a reason why Senator Charles Schumer, the de facto national leader of the Democrats, still obsessively comes back home every weekend to focus on local issues from the serious to the ridiculous. All politics is local, and Schumer plays that game better than anyone. Democrats, all of them, would be wise to follow-the-leader here.

LAZY: 2016 happened because everyone (myself included, I’m no saint) felt like the election was in the bag. After all, who could reject the most presidential candidate ever in favor of the least presidential candidate ever. But the country did. Democrats played under the same electoral college system that Trump did, but just didn’t work hard enough to win it. Democrats didn’t work hard enough to listen to, and deal with, local issues and voters across the county. Democrats partied in Philly with Bruce Springsteen the night before the election, rather than working their asses off in Michigan and Wisconsin. Laziness will lose every single time.

It’s easy to celebrate and assume that the country is beginning its incremental rejection of Trump. But if Democrats think the work is done (or that Trump will continue to do the work for them), there may be a lot more Trump than anyone has planned for.

Menashe Shapiro is the founder of the Shapiro Consulting Group. Previously, he served as a Managing Director for Research at Tusk Strategies and Tusk Ventures where he led the media and telecommunications practice.

“Opposition research” (as a concept) is back in the news. Was Donald Trump, Jr. colluding with a foreign government? Or was he simply flushing out legitimate “oppo” that could be relevant to his father’s presidential campaign?

While Donald Jr. clearly betrays his own thinking in the leaked emails, it’s another teachable moment brought to us by the Trumps. Therefore, here are five basic lessons I learned from my time spent researching and directing the flow of information up hierarchies in both campaigns and corporations:

1) Be Skeptical Not Emotional. Political campaigns by their very nature inspire passions. Corporate campaigns and massive litigations, usually have a boatload of money riding on the outcome. As a result, all are emotionally charged. The folks who contact you with information are motivated by personal agendas, greed, or grudges. Your job is to distill the information, verify it, and weigh it against the campaign’s overall message and plan. Presumably, you know the polling, or the market data, and have a sense of what people care about. The emotional crank who is calling you doesn’t. They don’t know who you are targeting, or your trade secrets. You can’t let emotions for your candidate, your company, or principal get in the way of your sound professional judgment. Healthy skepticism, will prevent you from getting hoodwinked or embarrassed, and keep you from wasting time on something irrelevant. It’s rare that any of those reaching out to you have something genuine to offer, and even rarer still that you will be privy to information that requires you to contact law enforcement or civil authorities (like the SEC, FTC, FEC). So best to listen politely, thank whoever, and get back to work.

2) Watch The Clock. Chasing down ridiculous fact patterns can take an inordinate amount of time. Just because someone with nothing better to do has spent their entire life putting something together, doesn’t mean you should devote all YOUR time to it. In my first real campaign experience, I once drew the “short straw” to dispense with an elderly person who claimed to have THE smoking gun against our opposition. (In reality, he simply made a nice binder of news articles he copied from his local library). He called the campaign incessantly, and one day he showed up. I was deputized (and given a high-ranking title just to sit down with the guy) with instructions to make him feel like we were seriously reviewing his material, and to get rid of him. My mistake was that it took me 30 minutes to get rid of the guy and the campaign manager needed me after 15 minutes. And I was chewed out. Loudly. Time is important on any campaign, or on any weekday for that matter, so when dealing with “crazy,” don’t lose sight of how much time you are wasting.

3) Keep Information AWAY From Principals. The candidate, CEO, celebrity, or key investor all have many things on their minds. They are human beings. Telling them something that is incomplete, unverified or even untrue, can cause them to focus their energies and attention on something that is not germane to what they need to do. Show them the final product once its produced, reported on, or in a clear one-pager of bullet points. Once in a campaign I had a candidate excitedly come over to find out what attacks we were working on. Rather than brag about our work, I expelled the candidate from the room, and simply said, “we got this.” The research wasn’t done, the information wasn’t ready, and the candidate needed to focus on other things that day (h/t to the campaign manager who always made sure the right hand knew what the left hand was doing). Another time, an opposing candidate wouldn’t stop discussing — “off-the-record” — a potential legal matter involving another candidate. But there was no record, no one to discuss it, and it was only a rumor. In the end, it was just an unseemly waste of time that this candidate wasted so much precious energy on, and of course he lost (as did the “accused”). Until you have it cold, keep the candidate or principal (and key family members) away from the information.

4) Trust Your Instincts. You have a plan, you have direction, and you know the polling and market data. That usually forms the basis of how you approach each and every day. Stick to it. The opposition, or competition, are always throwing things at you to knock you off your game. That’s why there are rapid response teams and even more planning and research. The last thing you need is someone “trying to help you” who further disrupts your day and wastes your precious time. More often than not, because of the time you have already spent on a matter, you will know with limited effort if something is real and worth pursuing. If someone shows up at your door pretending to be Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, treat them accordingly (i.e. leave them a cookie, a campaign sticker or button, or whatever) and move on.

5) Never Stop Vetting. Checking the peddlers of the information is as important as following up on the information itself. Who is calling? What is their background? What are they telling you about their past? What can you find out on your own about them? All this is relevant to understanding what the information is, and the motivations behind it. Don’t take the meeting before you know who are meeting with. This applies not just for the principals, but all the way down to the interns and volunteers. If you don’t have a handle on “who,” the “what” won’t matter.

The clear lessons from all of this is to do the work and not jump to conclusions (even if you “love” the potential outcome). Donald Jr. is in a heap of trouble of his own making. Watergate took two-plus years of reporting and fact-finding, Iran-Contra four years and Whitewater seven years. Lawfirms devote thousands of man hours to diligence before a merger. Nothing is clear right away, if ever. And if it seems too good to be true, it’s most likely FAKE.

Menashe Shapiro is the founder of the Shapiro Consulting Group. Previously, he served as a Managing Director for Research at Tusk Strategies and Tusk Ventures where he led the media and telecommunications practice.

“Opposition Research” on political campaigns is often divided into two components. The long-term steady research such as pulling together old business records, distilling news articles, and drafting, sending and analyzing FOIA requests.

Then there is the short term and daily opposition research. This includes following your opponents’ campaign, statements and releases, media monitoring, tracking public events, and nowadays, cataloging every single social media post, whether they originate from the campaign or the candidate, to surrogates, supporters, employees, celebrity volunteers and donors.

Good campaigns — winning campaigns — do all of this well. They amass all the information, make mountains out of molehills and turn everything into a big deal.

Then Donald Trump ran for President. A celebrity tycoon for nearly four decades, most of Trump’s businesses were open books. Plenty of bankruptcies and failed businesses, well-documented lawsuits, fraud and unhappy contractors. Trump was practically the only casino operator on the east coast — i.e. he was the “house” in a captive market — and still lost hundreds of millions of dollars. (Which is far worse than Abraham Lincoln failing as a blacksmith, farmer and lawyer prior to entering politics).

If that weren’t enough, he was a communications staff’s worst nightmare with his personal tweeting, unhinged speeches and complete lack of discipline in every facet of his campaign. He literally said whatever came to his mind.

On the flip side, Donald Trump was an opposition researcher’s candy store. In fact, no research was required. Trump himself did all the work for you. Researchers could have taken the cycle off, or at least left the office for a late dinner.

Yet, Trump won, and none of it seemed to matter. Which only begs the following questions:

1) Does the research even matter anymore?

2) Will another candidate — no matter how unqualified — be able to do and say anything and still get elected?

3) Will corporate executive suites be filled with a new generation of unhinged tweeters?

4) Will a career of failure matter less and less?

I think that in the Trump age, research matters now much more than it ever did. But my own self-interest aside, here are a few reasons why I believe this to be so:

1) Incomplete Information: There will always be a need for more research to be done. Not every fact or point resonates everywhere. Understanding where you are messaging, and to whom, will matter more and more. That requires more information, not less. Researching your target audience is as important as what you are going to tell them. Failing to understand the audience is the first step in missing out on correctly answering the big “so what?!” question with the information you are peddling. Never assume you have or know everything, the next bit of information can make you or break you.

2) Geography (that pesky electoral college) Matters: Winning today places a premium on many audiences and not simply one big one. It is rare that you have to convince an entire nation of anything, let alone elect a President. Most campaigns, whether they are political or business, target far fewer people and are geographically nuanced (i.e. mircotargeted). Thinking you can waltz into a city like New York or San Francisco with some of Trump’s baggage without any commitment to change will likely hand you a resounding defeat at the cash register or ballot box. Each location has its own priorities, and you need to know them to be relevant.

3) Investors Hate Controversy: Try raising capital, filing a registration statement or meeting with the one person who could guarantee your ability to operate, while on the phone with a crisis communications team, lobbyists and lawyers who are putting out the latest fire of your own creation. Try on the other hat. Be that investor, or his or her right hand, banker or lawyer researching the company and the CEO. Will you invest in a trainwreck? Even if they have a great product? The answer is probably no, with some nuance. But generally the smart money will stay away. So be smart, whoever you are, you need to do the homework.

4) Equilibrium Always Returns: While we all scratch our collective heads over one election (neither side expected this result), on Wednesday November 9, 2016 right and wrong hadn’t changed. Decency and common sense hadn’t changed. Obscenity (“we know it when we see it”) was still obscenity. Just because Trump won one election, doesn’t mean that the next person gets to do so being the unhinged business failure that he was. So in the the next campaign or corporate fight, you need to get back to basics, return to the drawing board and find out everything you can. Make sure that you know everything, because ultimately people will “come home” to right and wrong.

Donald Trump certainly upended the electoral process, changed the math of the electoral college and wrote his own rulebook. In the process, he made all the smart people look stupid. But if we decide that research no longer matters because of Trump, well, we are all going to look stupid for many years to come.

Menashe Shapiro is the founder of the Shapiro Consulting Group. Previously, he served as a Managing Director for Research at Tusk Strategies and Tusk Ventures where he led the media and telecommunications practice.