I had a couple of people ask me this year how I do my research. I just want to note again that I'm a hobbyist, not a journalist, so I can't call people up and say "this is Naomi Kritzer from the local paper of record, calling to ask you questions about your campaign." (I tend to assume that real journalists get quick responses to their questions, especially when they're softball questions like "what makes you different from your opponent?" but I may actually be totally wrong about this. I'll tell you this: "I'm a political blogger" does not open doors. People get this nervous, guarded look, like they think you're probably a lunatic.)
My core research tool is Google, but there are some specific techniques I use and stuff I look for.
1. Get the slate of candidates.
In Minnesota, you can get the precise slate of candidates for your precinct by visiting the MN Secretary of State's site and putting in your zip code and address: http://myballotmn.sos.state.mn.us/Default.aspx Once it gets to a month or so before the election you can even view a sample ballot.
The candidate list (though not the sample ballot) usually includes links to most of their websites. This is not perfect: some candidates, including one fairly high-profile one, wrote their URLs down wrong (or they got put in wrong at the elections office.) Nonetheless, the links can save time.
Getting the list is critical for the downballot races because they're so rarely covered in voter guides.
2. Look at the websites of the candidates.
Interpreting a candidate's website can be one of those areas where there's no substitute for a base of local knowledge, because so often there's subtle code. I mean, not always -- sometimes, you have a nice straightforward choice between an obvious conservative and an obvious liberal and you can pick your political philosophy and be done with it. (And in fact, in a U.S. Senate or U.S. House race you should probably just decide whether you like Democrats or Republicans and stick with those candidates, because you're not just voting for Jane Q. Minnesotan, you're voting for her party to control that branch of government.) In local elections, though, this may be a whole lot less clear, and there are more likely to be highly contentious issues that don't break down neatly along party lines.
"Fiscal responsibility" is something of a Republican buzzword and it can mean "I think teachers are overpaid and guidance counselors are a waste of money" but it can also mean "that sports stadium we are now spending a pile of money to build is STUPID and I wouldn't have supported it." "No handouts to billionaires" is a Democratic buzzword and it can mean "I think tax breaks for large employers are always a terrible idea, even when we're offering incentives for hiring the long-term unemployed" but it can ALSO mean "that sports stadium we are now spending a pile of money to build is STUPID and I wouldn't have supported it."
One of the words you'll see a lot in local elections is "transparency." Sometimes this means, "I am totally convinced that if only we posted all our minutes on a website, people would take a sudden passionate interest in solid waste management." Or, "We should hire someone to do VIDEO of all those solid waste management committee meetings and put THOSE on a website. Or local access cable! THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. EVERY. DETAIL." Other times it means, "I can't actually claim that my opponent is corrupt but everyone knows he is, and I'm promising fewer no-bid contracts, back-room deals, and mutual back-scratching arrangements." And occasionally it means, "I'm a corrupt jackass and I'm going to do that nifty political trick where I try to suggest my opponent has the exact problems that are my greatest weakness." Again, some knowledge of the local people involved can help.
It's always worth looking to see what they think the issues are, because that all by itself can be extremely revealing. When I'm evaluating politicians, especially at the local level, I'm a big fan of people who will commit to specifics. Everyone agrees that the achievement gap is a problem, so promising to erase the achievement gap is pretty meaningless if you're not saying "...by doing x, y, and z." (Of course, if people are promising totally ridiculous specifics, it's totally fine to hold that against them.)
Endorsements pages are also often very interesting. First off, as a general rule, if someone has no endorsements, that's a good indicator that they're a flake. (I mean, get all your friends to endorse you. At least make it look like your trying!) Second, they may be endorsed by politicians you know you hate, even if they're technically members of your party. (For the record, I loathed Norm Coleman back when he was a Democrat, too.) Or by people you know are nuts. You also get situations where the candidate is saying nothing particularly socially conservative anywhere on their website but has endorsements from socially conservative groups; that's a pretty good indicator that they hold very socially conservative views, even if they're keeping quiet about them this week.
If I'm having a really hard time sussing out what someone is like, I will sometimes go through the list of names on their endorsements page, Google the individuals, and try to figure out whether they run liberal or conservative. I mean, there's limits, with private individuals, but often you'll find out that they're board members of some non-profit, or they work as lobbyists, or they're high-level executives in some industry... this, however, can be a whole lot of work.
3. Google the candidates.
If a candidate has a very common name, or if they share a name with a celebrity, I'll try adding the state, the city, the county, the job they're running for, their political party if I know it, each political party in turn if I don't, and various relevant issues.
Sometimes, I will look specifically for news stories. You can adjust the dates on Google News if you click "Search Tools" on your results page, and look for stuff that's less recent. There are certain local sources I'll always click on. One of my favorites is the City Pages, because their searchable archive goes way back and they've always liked covering scandals. Obviously I'll click if I spot a Star Tribune link. I also like mnpost.com and tcdailyplanet.net. If I hit a really old article that looks promising but appears to only be in a paid archive (Highbeam, for instance), I make a note of where it appeared and visit my local library's website; they have paid access to a bunch of news databases. Usually, the stuff I'm after doesn't require archaeological skills, but every now and then I really have to dig. (It helps a lot if I have some idea of what I'm digging for.)
I look for candidates' Twitter feeds and Facebook pages; sometimes I can get more information on them that way (sometimes they're just very, very boring -- serious campaigns for high-level offices always have Twitter feeds but they tend to be shockingly dull.)
If I'm really digging (especially in minor races where I haven't been able to find much) I will look people up on LinkedIn. That can be a good way to see if this minor candidate has some qualification for the office they're running for. Also, sometimes there's stuff that will tip you off about their views and/or agenda.
Blogs are great. I'm always really excited when I find a blog, especially if it's from a few years ago, before this person was thinking about running for public office, and they might actually say what they think instead of couching everything in politically palatable euphemisms.
Minneapolis has a long-standing mailing list called the Issues List which is archived online. Sometimes I can find a fantastic gossipy discussion full of invective that relates to a particular candidate. It's fun when it's people talking about them; it's even MORE fun when they were a participant.
Interviews with candidates are basic but sometimes very solid. Interviews from a partisan source are more likely to be interesting. (Bonus points when the candidate forgets that Democrats AND Republicans will be able to read this interview.) Voter's Guides, of course, if they filled them out. If they refused to fill out a Voter's Guide that can also be revealing. (Sometimes what it reveals is, "this is not a serious candidate.")
4. Watch video / listen to radio.
This is not my favorite research method but I will do it occasionally. It can be particularly interesting if you can dig it up from primary season. Something I realized this time is that you can make a YouTube video skip five seconds forward or backward by using your arrow keys. (You have to start it, pause it, and restart it in order to activate that feature. It's possible it doesn't work on all videos.) This is especially good to know if you're trying to watch a primary-season debate during the main season because who cares what Kurt Zellers said?
Sometimes, candidates will put all their substantive ideas on videos so you have to sit through them yammering to find out what they think about anything. I hate that approach so profoundly that all by itself it's going to be a huge strike against any candidate who does it. I have a lot of races to research and a lot of candidates to sift through, and I can read a lot faster than I can listen.
5. Ask questions.
Sometimes I want to know something about a candidate's stance that's not on their website, and I will e-mail them to ask for more information. I've had a wide range of responses to this, from prompt helpful e-mails back to "can you please call me so we can chat? here's my number" to complete radio silence.
I get mixed results with this. Jeff Johnson (GOP candidate in the governor's race) ignored me. Hannah Nicollet (Independence candidate in the governor's race) asked me to call her, which I did, and we talked on the phone for a bit. Nelson Inz asked me to call him, which I ended up not doing. Jay Larson e-mailed back to ask me for a more specific question, but then did not follow up with a response to my more specific question. (I'd asked him how he differed from his opponent; he wanted to know a more specific concern so I asked him about the District 5 high school options. No reply.)
Asking me to call is fine. E-mailing back is fine. Having a campaign worker e-mail back is also fine. For someone in a local race to never respond at all is not fine and communicates a tremendous amount of arrogance, IMO. If I really want an answer I may try Twitter and the campaign Facebook page as well. (I tried that with Mark Andrews during last year's mayoral race and he did not answer me ANYWHERE. I sort of wondered if he was avoiding me because he thought I was nobody, or if he was avoiding me because he knew who I was and did not expect a favorable writeup?)
When a candidate persistently ignores me I always wonder if they ignore reporters, too. I don't usually lead with "I'm a blogger" -- I just tell them I'm researching candidates for the upcoming election and I have a question about X, here's my e-mail address, thank you. But, if they Google me, they'll find my blog. And I know some of the local politicians know who I am! (I am "Minnesota sci-fi writer and astute local political commentator," thank you, Gawker. I think I'm going to put that on my business cards.) But fundamentally, when I write to a candidate, I'm writing as a voter. And I think I deserve as much of a response as any other voter. I don't expect a personal reply when I write to Obama or Franken or Dayton (or McFadden or Johnson, before yesterday). But I do expect a personal reply when I write to my State Legislator or my City Council Rep -- not necessarily from them, but from their staff or a volunteer.
When I wrote to my City Council rep in St. Paul to grouse about the horrifying road work being done on Ford Parkway this fall and the fact that it was happening at the same time as Montreal Ave was closed, I got a fairly lengthy and apologetic e-mail back from their aide explaining why the scheduling happened the way it did. (It involved a fight for funding in one case, and a lawsuit regarding who they hired in the other, and then a desperate attempt to get everything done ASAP before winter. Annoying as hell, but it would be worse NOT to do the work, so...) When I wrote about the horrific mess that was Hamline Ave last spring, I got a similarly apologetic e-mail along with a promise that they were going to re-pave Hamline before winter. Which they did, hurray!
On a super fundamental level, that's what accountability looks like to me: a willingness to answer my questions, to respond to me when I have a complaint. I don't expect that to be instant; my elected officials have lives, kids, other jobs, other constituents. I don't always expect to get what I want; all resources are limited, and (hopefully) my elected officials have a broader perspective than I do on what those short-term hassles will get us in the long run.
Anyway, if someone won't answer my questions before they get the job, they're certainly not likely to answer my questions after they get the job.
If you're going to do this sort of work researching your local political races, your friends will appreciate it if you share, especially if they hold similar political views. I don't know how big my readership is at this point, just that it's way beyond my circle of personal friends because they found it useful enough to pass along.
Before I post stuff online, I try to organize my information: I want to have links to my sources. If someone dislikes my opinion, they can follow those links and form their own. My writeups tend to have a lot of snark, because that's part of what makes this fun for me. I do, however, try to avoid committing libel. If something's been alleged, I try to remember to say it's an allegation. If I'm expressing an opinion, I try to make sure it's expressed as an opinion.
I usually break do a separate post for each race, but if I have a lot to say about the candidates in some race I might break that one down by candidate because novella-length blog posts are annoying both to write and to read.
Shortly before the election I collect all my endorsements onto one page.
Local elections matter a lot. I was talking about this today with a friend on Facebook. It's weird to me that people focus so heavily on the national elections, to the exclusion of the local races, given how much of your day-to-day quality of life is the result of stuff your state legislature and city council are doing (or not doing). You are not under any obligation to be exhaustively thorough: you can just sit down with your sample ballot and check out a few websites and ignore anyone who isn't easy to find.