Can Data Mining Win a Presidential Campaign?

Nerval's Lobster writes "According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney's campaign has contracted consumer-analytics firm Buxton Co. to drill deep into consumer data, with the aim of digging up 'wealthy and previously untapped' donors. (Romney digital director Zac Moffatt told political Website Politico as far back as June that the Romney campaign would 'outsource' its data analytics rather than develop the necessary infrastructure in-house.) In addition to hooking the digital side of their campaign to the Facebook data hose, Obama's election managers have hired a mix of digital directors, software engineers and statistics experts. 'Obama for America is looking for Quantitative Media Analysts, Analytics Engineers, Battleground States Elections Analysts and Modeling Analysts,' reads a want ad on the campaign's Website. The goal: to create data processing pipelines, integrate new data into models, build tools, and generate reports. In an election this close, with a rapidly shrinking number of undecided voters and contested states, a razor-thin advantage created by data analytics could mean the difference between success and failure."

Comments

In Romney's case, no.

[damn_registrars]

Romney has already lost this election. When he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate he sent the middle-of-the-road independent voters running away as they want nothing to do with the extreme conservatism that he represents. He gained only the far-right voters of his own party, but they would have eventually voted for him anyways because they hate Obama. He could have chosen Bill Clinton as his running mate and the GOP far-right still would have voted for him just because they believe Obama to be the devil in the flesh.

The only way Romney can win this is if the GOP makes an even more epic voter suppression effort than they did in Ohio in 2004, coupled with crooked balloting (and counting) like they did in Florida in 2000, and who knows what else.

The real puzzler here is why the GOP even let Ryan accept the nomination to be VP on a can't-win ticket. That really doesn't look that great for his future and the GOP loves Ryan. Not many people who were VP nominee on a losing run have come back to make a significant career in national politics (and some polls are already suggesting his congressional seat is now in play, too).

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[garcia]

It seems the campaign is using data to help drive their campaign and thus one can assume their decisions as well. I would be willing to bet that data analysis played at least a small part in the Ryan choice just like any other business looking for an advantage in the marketplace.

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[aaarrrgggh]

From what I have read elsewhere, most of the data mining efforts are centered around fundraising. It seems that the same priority on fundraising may have played a roll in VP selection. The old line of thought is that with enough money you can get anyone elected.

As is always the case, the winner is the one most successful in getting their supporters to actually vote. Mobilizing the base keeps states you should never lose out of play.

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way Romney can win this is if the GOP makes an even more epic voter suppression effort than they did in Ohio in 2004, coupled with crooked balloting (and counting) like they did in Florida in 2000, and who knows what else.

Between that, the epic amounts of money Romney is having thrown into this election on his behalf, and the fact that the economy is still limping (no thanks to the breath-holding and screaming defiance of the Tea Party)... I think the GDGOP will manage to take this election.

Obama, while disappointing (though not surprisingly disappointing, he is, after all, a politician, even if he means well), is a moderate and is much MUCH less dangerous to this country than Romney will be, given what the pick of Ryan says about the mind-set of the GOP. Slash and burn the budget, sell the infrastructure to private interests so THEY can neglect our highways and bridges while setting up tolls to squeeze every last bit of profit out of it, shred the scanty few safety nets we have left, let the poor die early because they can't afford to pay for health care, but spend as much as we can on the military, God knows we don't want to look weak, who cares if we can't actually afford to use our military, it has to LOOK strong.

I'm pretty sure we're screwed.

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[T.E.D.]

Suppression won't do it either. There are only about 7 states legitimately in play right now, and Romney has to pretty much win all to get past the magic 270 electors requred. Obama is ahead in all but one of them (it was all but two, but thanks to nominating the anti-SS/Medicare/Medicaid guy for VP, the lead in FL has now switchted to Obama too).

The only possible path to victory for Romney/Ryan now is to somehow change the entire map in their favor. They need something big to change in the next two months. No amount of nibbling at the edges is going to do it for them.

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[poity]

I see them both as moderates. Romney is pulled by the vocal (and more extreme) wing of his party, and forced to differentiate himself from a moderate Obama. When you must make yourself stand apart from the center, you have no choice but to go towards either wing, and as a Republican there is no place for him to go but to the right. It's tragic, really. You can tell that he's tired of going back on his word and his record as Governor, and that he lacks conviction when he panders to that faction. I'm quite hopeful that if he does win, he won't be keeping many promises to the Tea Party. Though, that's not a risk I'd like to take.

Re:In Romney's case, no.

[dpilot]

> The only way Romney can win this is if the GOP makes an even more epic voter suppression
> effort than they did in Ohio in 2004, coupled with crooked balloting (and counting) like they did in
> Florida in 2000, and who knows what else.

They've been working really, really hard on voter suppression, in the name of stopping voter fraud. Let's say Romney wins. My question is what will they do in 2014/2016 to keep the offices?

My personal belief is that one of the fundamental broken aspects of the economy is that the 1% has too much money and the 99% not enough. Because the 99% don't have enough money to do the things they need to do, the economy is sluggish and barely moving. Because the 1% have too much, they keep looking for a place to invest, but investment needs a substantial base in the real world under it, and that substantial base is gone. Therefore every attempt to invest in real-world things (like fuel or mortgages) turns into a bubble. (I suppose I could use the "small-signal analogy" and suggest that too much investment money in too small a base/real economy violates operating point conditions.)

The universal strategy for Republicans is de-regulation and tax cuts, but neither of those will help the wealth inequality, and I don't even think that they perceive the wealth inequality as a problem. So I don't believe that the Republicans are capable of fielding any sort of economic plan that will fix things. In fact, they'll likely reflexively move move money from the 99% to the 1%, making things worse.

At the same time, they will likely focus heavily on their social agenda, which at some point is going to start bothering even conservative women.

IMHO it's a recipe for disaster for them in 2012/2016, unless they figure out how to suppress even more votes.

Turnout, not undecideds, will determine election

[mveloso]

If you look at the numbers, the general election is usually decided by a few percent.

Those few percent aren't really worth reaching. A lot of them decide at the booth, making saturation advertising a desperate attempt to shove your name into their heads so it bubbles up to the top in a moment of indecision.

But, if you look at the numbers another way, the real key to winning the election is getting voters who already like you to vote. The party that wins is the party who's voters show up.

Will data mining help get people out and vote? Doubtful. Buying all the prime time slots and using them for nagging would probably be more useful...though data mining could identify and drive small donors to donate. Again, though, undecided voters probably don't donate to campaigns a whole lot. Why donate to a campaign if you're undecided?

Finance reform

[Haawkeye]

Your finance system for elections is in desperate need of reform. I live in Canada where companies can not contribute st all. For people the max donation I think is $1500. So the party has to get wide appeal and convince enough people to give them money.

Re:An election this close?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mainstream media figured out that a close race is the most profitable kind of race because more people will be watching their 24/7 coverage of it, so they will attempt to skew opinion towards keeping the race close, with hit pieces against the front-runner and fawning over the underdog. (They don't even really care who wins.) They've been doing this since at least 2004. You're never going to see a Mondale-v-Reagan-style blowout again unless the underlying media economics change.

Re:An election this close?

[jellomizer]

Media is trying to be objective, for the most part. If they start saying Obama is going to win on a landslide, or Romney has the ticket in hand. (especially this early on in the election cycle) the news coverage could effect the final outcome. The media trying to keep objective may seem like they are saying it is a close race. But a close race is good, it means both sides will go out and vote more.

But can data mining help win. You bet.
A candidate has only limited resources, they need to be placed in smart locations, towards the right people.
For example. Republicans will go to Texas, and Democrats will go to California or New York for fund raisers, but they will do nearly all their campaigning in swing states. So for us people who live in a solid color state, we really don't matter unless we have a lot of money, because we are stupid enough to vote for the same party every time no matter who is running.
But for the swing states they get all the political love. The president will try to keep these states happy while elected and Challengers are going to push for new things that effect those states.
Now with better data mining they will find better targets If they hold a rally outside a major city vs. inside it. Which towns are better then others. Who are the demographics there so not to piss them off. The ones with the better data has the advantage.

The political nuts, who favor one side or the other, often see the moderate, swing vote as people who don't care, are are uninformed (mostly do to your political stance is My Way is the right way, the other way is only due to corruption, because why else would they think of an opposing view if their thinking wasn't corrupted) The moderate group has the same normal distribution of intelligence, and normally would like to listen to both sides and then weigh their personal views with what the other is saying.

Re:Intelligence winning elections

[Thorodin]

Agreed. I heard this a couple of weeks ago: "The definition of a politician is one, who seeing which way the crowd is headed, gets out in front and says 'Follow me!'"

Re:An election this close?

[bzipitidoo]

a close race is good, it means both sides will go out and vote more.

Participation is good, and insofar as a close race raises participation, that's good. But I don't agree that a close race is necessarily good, not when one side has gone bonkers. I'd like to see the Republicans put out of everyone's misery, and replaced with another party, they're so damned crazy anymore.

Republicans have fallen a long, long way from the party of Lincoln, the party that stood proudly against slavery, while the Democrats talked of maintaining the status quo and trying to compromise, of wimpily avoiding the horrors of war at all costs. Would've been nice if the slavery issue could have been resolved without a savage war. The South knew they could not win if the North was determined, yet they started the war anyway, vainly hoping the North would back down. That was never going to happen, not after the first battles threw the North's manhood into doubt!

There was a time when the Republicans were the sober, prudent, well grounded, fiscal conservatives, firmly tied to facts and sound scientific reasoning, and the Democrats were the woolly thinking, misty-eyed fools would thought they could do such things as declare and win a War on Poverty. Those were Republicans I could vote for.

Now the Republicans are the delusional fools. They paint a seemingly lovely picture of the way the world and America was, and seem unable to face reality and the present. They act like it's still the 1950s, still Happy Days. Nice fantasy, for older white men perhaps, but dangerously wrong. But they press on, favoring actions based upon the thought that 1950's America is still with us now. They've cranked up the production of delusional "facts" to frightful levels. They've turned against the very science they used to cherish, becoming scarily contemptuous of it. This denial of Global Warming is just one of many anti-science efforts they've sullied themselves with. Even on fiscal matters, they've blown it. The War of Choice in Iraq was a huge, huge expense. They refuse to consider any kind of health care whatsoever, even those plans that would reduce all our expenses and get us better health care. They won't hear of even just closing tax loopholes to solve these budget issues that have so exercised them lately. They don't say it outright, but what they promise is to take America back to the paradise of the 1950s, if only we will elect them. The most damnable thing is, that in many ways the world of today is way, way better than those "good" old days they recall so fondly. I'm not crazy about the Democrats, but voting for this screwball Republican party is absolutely out of the question.