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."
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.
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.
Problem is, more money buys better, brighter geeks.
Intelligence wins elections. It just depends what kind of intelligence, what I get from geeks is that they tend to defend their point of view, politicians on the other hand, they win intelligently, because they say what people want to hear, not what they really think. When they say what they think, they normally lose votes.
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.
Technically there are no caps, but there are Federal Matching Funds which, if requested, impose caps. It used to be almost obligatory to use the matching funds, if only to avoid an arms race for donations.
In the last election, when Obama saw how much money he could make if he declined matching funds and thus removed the caps, he decided to take the larger amount of money and raise and spend money without a limit. This time is no different and so now both campaigns have not even bothered, which has made this the election with the most money spent on it ever.
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.
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.
Do you not have election budget caps in the US? :) of course not...
Of course not.
With the US government literally dispensing TRILLIONS of dollars of money each year, is it any real surprise people are willing to spend billions of dollars to effect how those TRILLIONS of dollars get spent?
The problem isn't the money spent on elections and lobbying. The problem is the government is so damn big and powerful and invasive that the only way to really succeed is to try and bribe it.
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!'"
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"
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!
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!”
I think the Democrats realize that if they decide to fight it out on money, they are going to eventually lose. Obama taking the extra money was a tactical success, but a strategic failure that I think that the Democratic party will regret sooner or later.
No, it's Citizen's United and the resulting super PACs that are doing it. The money going to the actual campaigns is still limited to $5000 per contributor (Wikipedia says $2500... I'm not sure that's the whole story, but the point is that it's limited), it's the super PACs that can take an unlimited amount of money and from anonymous donors.
You are correct that this is working far far more in the Republican's favor than the Democrat's, partly because Obama publicly came out against super PACs and declared that he could win without one. He has one anyway - it was set up on his behalf, whether he wanted it or not. However, it has only raised something like $40M vs. $800M between all the super PACs for Romney.
I'm undoing mods to post this, but people need to be clear on what the problem is if we're ever going to have a hope of fixing it.