George Santos and opposition research
Being an opposition researcher is a lot like being an NFL offensive lineman — you only seem to get noticed when something goes terribly wrong. In December 2022, as the New York Times started reporting on the fabulist George Santos, it was clear that something had gone terribly wrong. And it was just as clear that everyone suddenly noticed the lack of opposition research.
As someone who has spent decades working in research, I was of two minds about the situation. Part of me was excited that the political world was even talking about opposition research. I’ve evangelized about the importance of that work for years, even teaching it to college students. Despite those efforts, research remained a much-ignored field, so the fact that politicos were discussing it was invigorating.
On the other hand, Democratic practitioners of research were now infamous, rather than appreciated. Article after article bashed my brethren, with the entire political world throwing opposition researchers under the bus. An industry that was comfortable spending less than 1% of their total budget on opposition research was dumbfounded that something was missed on a non-targeted race.
I was reminded about all of this as Tom Suozzi took the oath of office last week. Suozzi was able to reclaim the seat for Democrats in the special election three weeks ago. The congressman thoroughly dominated the race, outspending, out-messaging, and just flat outdoing his Republican opponent, winning by nearly eight points.
There’s been plenty of analysis of the race — what it means, who ran a good race, and per usual, who gets the blame. The one thing missing from the post-race analysis — any talk of opposition research. Just a year removed from people citing it as the reason that Democrats lost the seat, there is nary a mention of research in the post-race discussion.
I wish I could say I am surprised. In politics, victory may have a thousand fathers, but research is rarely asked to take a paternity test. People think that research is all about digging dirt, or in the case of Santos, missing outrageous lies. But it’s more involved than that. On good campaigns, research is woven into the fabric of their message.
The Suozzi-Pilip race is actually a good example of how research, or the lack of it, influences campaigns, even if it goes unnoticed. Mazi Pilip’s financial difficulties illustrate that point. Pilip and the GOP bragged about how three research firms combed her record and gave her a clean bill of health. The Nassau Republican chairman, Joe Cairo, even said “We know everything we need to know about Mazi.”
However, the research from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington unearthed the fact that Pilip was embroiled in a lawsuit regarding her family’s medical practice. Later, Pilip’s financial disclosure revealed that she and her husband owed the IRS a substantial debt.
While these items aren’t nearly as interesting as Santos’ fake volleyball career or as lurid as his false Holocaust claims, they show that good research, or lack thereof, can undermine a candidate’s credibility.
Researching the positive record of a candidate also tends to fly below the radar, but it is an integral part of a campaign. The Suozzi team had the benefit of not only having the better candidate, but the candidate with the better record, and they took advantage of it.
Both earned and paid media for the Suozzi team highlighted his record in turning around Nassau County, protecting the environment and working in a bipartisan fashion. Suozzi’s long, successful record, compiled with the help of research, stood in stark contrast to Pilip’s lack of accomplishments.
Moving research, which is the ability of the campaign to pitch the stories to the press, is also rarely remarked on, but it matters. You can have the best research in the world, but if the public doesn’t hear about it, it’s just empty campaign calories. The Suozzi team did an incredible job of informing the public about Pilip’s weaknesses, like her missed votes or her financial disclosure shenanigans. No arrow was left in the quiver.
After a year of embarrassing headlines, the Suozzi campaign restored order. It excised the mistake that was George Santos while providing Democrats with a shot in the arm. It also helped restore research to its usual position in the political universe — once again going unnoticed. After the Santos race, we’ll take it.
Di Resta is an opposition researcher and adjunct professor. He was also a consultant to the Tom Suozzi special election campaign in 2024.