Slashdot Mirror
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."
It might actually be nice to have an election won on the back of how bright your geeks are, rather than just how much money you have.
I would impose the condition that you are only allowed to use geeks that support your politics though. Rather than permitting outsourcing, I want to see this work being done by card-carrying members of your political party.
So Romney is outsourcing Republican party functions too?
Ibid.
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).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Mis-read it as "wealth of previously untapped policies", im obviously not cynical enough.
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?
when data mining and shaping the public opinion are the means to winning.
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.
ron paul just says logical arguments and listens to what people have to say.
And how is that working out for him?
I'd argue that data mining for donations could well increase the number of people who vote. People who can be persuaded to give, even a token sum, are more likely to show up and vote because now they feel a closer stake in the election. In addition, to support a candidate financially and then not to show up to vote for that candidate would create an uncomfortable level of cognitive dissonance.
According to him, Obama has a 69% chance of winning, but will only barely get a majority (not even 51%).
I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
I think the race is close, but the percentages are probably fixed. In short, Obama will likely win because certain groups would never not vote for him. Most women, the huge majority of blacks, Hispanics (other than Cubans) and union voters will simply vote for him because they won't vote for a Republican. The Republicans have their own base that will not budge either. There are independents, but they have probably already decided too, or are staying home.
In short, the Democratic base is likely to be slightly bigger than the Republican one, so the Democrats will win, but the actual percentages will be close in an absolute sense. However, that small seeming gap may seem like not much to make up, but I think it might as well be the Grand Canyon because its not going to change.
It is possible to get higher percentages, but you need a team so charismatic that voters just love them (that's not Mitt Romney) or a screw up so extreme that Democrats become disgusted with Obama (unlikely if he doesn't do anything off-script).
The Republicans' next real chance is the next Presidential election, which is likely what the more interesting people like Marco Rubio are waiting on. Without Obama there, the Democratic party doesn't have anyone who I'd consider to be a shoo-in as people like Hillary won't run again. Biden? That would be hilarious, but no.
Even if we don't bring out the Betteridge's Law of Headlines ...
With current candidates I'd say - no.
I think the race is close, but the percentages are probably fixed. In short, Obama will likely win because certain groups would never not vote for him. Most women, the huge majority of blacks, Hispanics (other than Cubans) and union voters will simply vote for him because they won't vote for a Republican. The Republicans have their own base that will not budge either. There are independents, but they have probably already decided too, or are staying home.
In short, the Democratic base is likely to be slightly bigger than the Republican one, so the Democrats will win, but the actual percentages will be close in an absolute sense
Which really means it will depend on where the "majority" comes from. Remember, in this country we do NOT vote for president - we vote for electors who vote for president (the Electoral College). A "majority" does not guarantee a win.
antipaucity
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
ron paul just says logical arguments and listens to what people have to say.
That is why he doesn't do well with the American electorate.
In a PEW study, some 93% of elections (the big ones, like president and house) are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Of the remainder, most fail because of political scandal.
Romney won't be the center of a scandal. Being Mormon, it's unlikely that he'll be accused of having sex with an aide, and it's unlikely that any financial shenanigans will come to light.
Romney has been "out funding" Obama by a wide margin, and very little of this money has been spent. There's also the likelihood of pro-Romney advertizing by various groups independent of his campaign - anyone, any PAC or business can take out an ad.
After the nomination, check the proportion of pro-Romney advertizing versus pro-Obama.
I think you'll find that a fire hose of predominately Romney advertizing will change a good many opinions.
Obama has already won, Romney just doesn't understand it yet.
The reason for it is that the dialog now is not about being fiscally conservative and pro-individual freedom vs big government, it is now about who is the bigger Democrat: Obama or Romney?
Obviously Obama IS the bigger Democrat than Romney, thus Romney has already lost.
The moment Romney said for the first time that Obama is 'hurting Medicare by cutting it', that was the moment Romney lost. Why? Who believes Romney that he is going to out-Obama Obama?
--
But it doesn't matter who wins, Romney or Obama, the end result will be exactly the same, there is no difference. Actually it doesn't matter who wins right now, even if it could be Ron Paul or Garry Johnson, the coming collapse of the US dollar and bonds is unavoidable. The difference would have been what would happen AFTER the collapse, and with Obama or Romney (doesn't matter) after the collapse either of them would attempt to grow the government even more by completely finishing off the private sector and free market economy, whatever is left of it in USA.
For reference you can see a couple of comments that give a little more perspective.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
I disagree, it doesn't need to be a sex scandal, anything bad can kill a candidates chances. Romney for example seems to stumble from one war-on-woman disaster to a pays-no-taxes to, well today, he's facing the 'bain-shipping-jobs-to-china' scandal:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/28/workers_at_bain_owned_illinois_factory
People don't donate money unless they think someone has a chance to win, or if they desperately need him to win.
For the 1% that's backing Romney, they're throwing money at him in hope, simply because it's cheaper than paying the same tax rate as the rest of us.
If Obama wins the rich will pay taxes like the rest of us, if Romney wins they keep their tax breaks. So it's not a donation to a candidate, it's an investment in a tax reduction. Not the same as before.
I don't see how adding more donors to your rolls at this point is going to help either candidate with the undecided in the practically 2 months that are left. Will making one more commercial spend actually change someone's mind? Don't they spend enough as it is? At some point there has to be diminishing returns, if not negative, on a PR election campaign. I know at least for me, if I'm constantly bombarded by political ads, it begins to turn me against the candidate (just like car commercials).
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I'd rather talk about Ron Paul than either of these clowns. I can't tell them apart anyway.
Media is trying to be objective, for the most part.
No, media is trying to get ratings.
The political nuts, who favor one side or the other
They're all nuts. The Ds are nuts for thinking that Obama isn't yet another authoritarian crony capitalist (or for voting for him anyway). The Rs are nuts for thinking that more authoritarian crony capitalism is the solution to the problem caused by authoritarian crony capitalism. And the moderates are nuts for seriously considering not one, but two authoritarian crony capitalists.
The only sane reaction is the George Carlin reaction.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I am not saying I disagree with your assessment of the Republicans (I do think they have gone too far to the right). But if there is an impression of a close race, and you think the republicans have gone nuts... You really should go out and vote for the democrats. If they told you the Democrats will win by a landslide, you may not vote because you figure your vote will not say anything. If they told you the Republicans are a sure bet, then you may not vote but take your time building a bomb shelter, or prepping for a wold you really don't want to see.
But just as matter of reference when Bush was president I heard a lot of crazy stuff coming from the Democrats, some overtly zealotry left crazy ideas that ignore even the most principal areas of economics.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The skin tone should give 'em away. And I hear one of them is kind of a nice guy.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The election is designed to split the vote as evenly as possible, because if one party gets a super majority they would have to absorb the blame for anything that goes wrong. So, the setup is made to diffuse blame. Both factions can keep their power over any usurpers from an opposition party. The democrats act just evil enough and the republicans just crazy enough to keep each other out of trouble with too large a majority. Win-win for both. They are not in any kind of opposition. And we just go along.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
ron paul just says logical arguments and listens to what people have to say.
And how is that working out for him?
We'll let you know once he gets started.
Dark Reflection
Media is trying to be objective, for the most part.... the news coverage could effect the final outcome.
What makes you think the media doesn't want to effect the final outcome?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I agree with you (and them) completely, and had come to that same conclusion independently.
I don't mean to say that the elections can be bought in this manner - I'm neutral on the issue (or at least, undecided). I think of it more as an example of crowd-sourcing a question with an easy way to determine the result.
Correlation and causation really don't matter in this instance. The observation is that the two correlate; consequently, we can predict the future from past observations.
The 1% figure is interesting. If (as I suspect) Romney has around 10x the campaign money as Obama, that accounts for a little over 3% of the popular vote (three doublings of spending). Would that be enough to give Romney the election?
(I don't care for either of them - this as just an intellectual exercise.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I think the race is close, but the percentages are probably fixed. In short, Obama will likely win because certain groups would never not vote for him. Most women, the huge majority of blacks, Hispanics (other than Cubans) and union voters will simply vote for him because they won't vote for a Republican. The Republicans have their own base that will not budge either. There are independents, but they have probably already decided too, or are staying home.
I love the huge major flaw in our election system.
It is possible to get higher percentages, but you need a team so charismatic that voters just love them (that's not Mitt Romney) or a screw up so extreme that Democrats become disgusted with Obama (unlikely if he doesn't do anything off-script).
Obama doesn't need to screw up. A lot of people have been saying that the perceived status of the economy will be what determines if he wins. If people who are underemployed or unemployed don't feel that their situation has improved or it has actually worsened in the past four years they're going to be less likely to vote for Obama. Obama's team knows this and that's why you keep seeing fearmongering style ads and speech's by Obama by saying (paraphrased) "Bush got us into this mess. Romney wants to keep the same policies Bush had."
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
This. This is where data and turnout collide. Except it begins much earlier. The computers spit out lists of likely undecided voters and supporters likely to stay home and we call them and knock on their door. I've been doing it for over a month already, and will be at it twice a week until the election. It's the results of all that canvassing that gets put to use on election day. The data gets put to use much earlier. At least, that's how the Obama campaign is doing it. I guess the Republicans probably aren't spending a lot of labor on increasing turnout,.
the Democrats were the woolly thinking, misty-eyed fools would thought they could do such things as declare and win a War on Poverty
Just because you can't achieve 100% success in getting rid of something doesn't mean it's not worth trying at all.
Your militaristic metaphor is amusingly right wing and nonsensical.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it