Obama, Romney Data Scientists Strike Out On Their Own

dcblogs writes "The self-described nerds of President Obama's presidential campaign last year are back using big data analytics, this time to help Newark Mayor Cory Booker achieve a landside primary win Tuesday in the New Jersey Democratic primary for a vacant U.S. Senate seat. The data scientists from Obama and Romney campaigns recently formed their own consulting businesses within months of each other. The chief data scientist for Romney's campaign, Alex Lundry, co-founded Deep Root Analytics. He gives credit to the Obama campaign's data effort in 2012. But since last year's election, "what you are seeing is a flurry of activity on the right to make sure that we not only catch them, but surpass them," Lundry said. Meanwhile, the co-founder of BlueLabs, Chris Wegrzyn, a senior member of Obama's 2012 campaign analytics department, says last year was turning point for big data analytics in elections. "Usually the nerds in the back room don't warrant a great deal of attention, especially in politics," said Wegrzyn, "but the world is changing.""

Comments

Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians mining the data to see which opinions they need to have during the election to get them elected.
Once elected they continue to do what they really wanted to do anyway.

Re: Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes a political purge much more efficient too.

Re:Changing for the worse

[Amorymeltzer]

Politicians mining the data to see which opinions they need to have during the election to get them elected.
Once elected they continue to do what they really wanted to do anyway.

Are broken promises really that much worse than kept bad promises? The triumph of hope over experience depends on the former.

Re:Changing for the worse

[craigminah]

It still amazes me that people believe politicians are actually going to do what they promise while campaigning. The only way to objectively look at a candidate and what they might do if elected is to see what they did in their most previous office.

Re:Changing for the worse

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, according to Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, the only hope is to elect ultra conservative Republicans like Rand Paul.

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4989

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to clarify that in year 2013 words like "ultra conservative" in respect to US politics are fucking worthless.

Clarification that only an "ultra conservative" would considered ending the TSA, rolling back the state security apparatus, and ending our foreign campaigns of conquest, war, and sabotauge, ending the war on drugs, common sense, and most other gross abuses of state authority.

Re:Changing for the worse

[alen]

yes, when William Jennings Bryan did it, they called it populism. its now known as pandering to the masses

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the Progressive Caucus. Not 100% match as I doubt they'd really hit the TSA or the rest of it nearly as hard as it deserves. Really the further left you go in the USA, the more conservative you get. Right-wing conservative has become an oxymoron.

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

See, and I take your point to heart, and its been amazing to me why as electors, we don't demand something like a performance bond from political leaders/political parties. When a contractor bids for a government job, they have to put up a bond as an expectation of performance, and if they fail to fulfill the requirements of the bond, they forefeit the bond. I also don't know why there aren't performance milestones too (if a political party/politician promises X, and its to be completed by Y, and they fail, they lose money, and if they fail badly, a new election is called (3 months, 6 months, 2 years, etc.)). Political parties have liked to lie in the last while. Perhaps a few hundred million/billion in expenses before they start being able to campaign will get them offering the electorate something closer to the truth.

Re:Changing for the worse

[I'm New Around Here]

Sounds like the Progressive Caucus.

Obama and Hillary are the Progressive Caucus. What have they done? Expanded the government which enables all the abuses.

Re:Changing for the worse

[I'm New Around Here]

I think you need to clarify that in year 2013 words like "ultra conservative" in respect to US politics are fucking worthless.

Don't tell me that, you moron, tell the hero of the left, Julian Assange. He is the one that made the statement, I'm just letting you know what he said.

But really, you just can't accept that someone who cares so much about the world (Mr. Assange) would actually praise someone not of the far left. The truth is obvious in your screed. "Not by my definition of ultra-conservative, those damn racist neocons."

Clarification that only an "ultra conservative" would considered ending the TSA, rolling back the state security apparatus, and ending our foreign campaigns of conquest, war, and sabotauge, ending the war on drugs, common sense, and most other gross abuses of state authority.

The Progressives who have held power for at least four years haven't done so, have they? The Democrats are worse than the Republicans were, with increased drone strikes, increased spying, increased TSA presence. You have to accept reality at some point in your life, why not try it right now.

For what it's worth, I voted for Obama in 2008, for several reasons, and last year voted Green Party for a very specific reason. If you weren't so obviously closed-minded, you could vote outside your narrow view as well.

Re:Changing for the worse

[houghi]

The real problem is that you don't have a choice. A two party system does not really give you a choice.
I mean, if you are pro-gun and pro-choice, what party are you going to vote for?
Either way, you will get disappointed, because one of the things you care for will be not what you wanted it to be.

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way they could be honest if they wanted to. For example, presidents in the US do have some power, but they do not have the power to do anything like the things that they all promise to do if elected. Clearly, they can't honestly promise to do something that is not in their power. Presidents don't make laws, for example, so any promise of making or changing any particular law is a lie. At most, they can say that they would support this law and they hope that they can get congress and the house to support it too, in which case it would become law.

Re:Changing for the worse

[jafiwam]

Politicians mining the data to see which opinions they need to have during the election to get them elected. Once elected they continue to do what they really wanted to do anyway.

Not quite. A politician in charge of the NSA able to wiretap anything "accidentally" able to track in real time how to manipulate elections. Same politician who sent the IRS after political enemies.

I can't wait for this infrastructure to be used against the other party when the time comes. It'll be delicious.

Re:Changing for the worse

[the_humeister]

You'll have to compromise on what you find more important: would you rather be more pro-gun, or more pro-choice? I mean, I'd love to have a 1000 HP car that gets at least 50 MPG. I'm always disappointed that I can't get a car that does both.

Re:Changing for the worse

[b4dc0d3r]

For a first time office, that is impossible. The president has different responsibilities from a legislator. That makes their responses different. New information, New advisors, and the candidate ceases to exist.

So it really only works for reelection, and then the evil you know may be better than the one you don't.

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Obama and Hillary are both Third Way Democrats well to the right of the Progressive Caucus. Second, government employment has dropped under Obama. Third, certain sectors of the government need to be radically expanded: oversight of the NSA, TSA, etc. is barely existent, the IRS needs to be expanded to go after tax dodgers, and the oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector is negligible. Shrinking government--which is what has occurred--enables all the abuses.

Re:Changing for the worse

[I'm New Around Here]

Second, government employment has dropped under Obama.

So you are saying that there are fewer federal government employees working for the United States government now than when President Obama took office.

Do you have the facts to back that up? Because I have found sites that show that is not correct.

Re:Changing for the worse

[stinerman]

The horse's mouth says it has dropped since 2009:

2009: 4,430,000
2010: 4,443,000 (the site notes that this includes temporary workers hired for the census)
2011: 4,403,000

So we can conclude that there were less federal government employees in 2011 than there were in 2009 when President Obama took office. Not much less, mind you, but certainly less.

Re:Changing for the worse

[I'm New Around Here]

Not quite. Those numbers are for year-end employment. You would have to go back to 2008 to see how many people worked for the federal government under Bush, since I doubt many were added in the first 20 days of 2009.

So that changes to:

2008: 4,206,000
2011: 4,403,000

There seems to be an increase of nearly 200,000 in President Obama's first three years. In fact, most of the increase seems to have happened almost immediately after he came into office, if 2009 had an increase of 224,000 from the previous year. So federal employment has fallen since the massive increase after Obama took office, but is still higher than under Bush.

Re:Changing for the worse

[flayzernax]

Even then, what they do once elected could still be 180 if they serve different interests the next time around. Right now its big business, and military industrial. Aka anti terrorism and copyright. As well as the racket that "Insurance" companies are.

And aerospace.

Re:Changing for the worse

[flayzernax]

As well as big oil. I forgot to mention the power and energy and telecommunications monopolies. (who have a stranglehold on your transportation as well)

Re:Changing for the worse

[flayzernax]

At this point our cars don't even need to run on gasoline refined from crude oil. But we lack the freedom to do it any other way. Its been explained and cited out 500 different ways from many intelligent speakers on the issue. Yet people will still come on here and argue about the system "working as intended" still.

Re:Changing for the worse

[Anonymous Coward]

And we can all be 100% certain that if no matter which party gets elected in 2016, things will get much worse, in the EXACT SAME WAYS.

I seriously don't understand how a site full of nerds cannot follow very simple patterns and realize there is literally no difference at all between D and R.

Re:Changing for the worse

[router]

Horrible car analogy. 1000 HP and 50 MPG are engineering extremes (current tech, gas, etc.).

What he's asking for is for his Federal politicians in the US to actually uphold the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment. Or any of the other ones. Or have a party whose platform doesn't consist of the opposite of the other party's platform.

Parent, all we can do is vote third party (pick one, doesn't matter). Until any third party has a viable chance no reasonable candidates will run, no politicians will heed the will of the people.

andy

Re:Changing for the worse

[router]

Fsck come on now, the Federal Budget is going ever higher. Arguing over Federal Employees vs government contractors wholly responsible to Federal Employees is pedantic. They are spending more money they are in control of more people. End of story.

andy

Stats:

[ackthpt]

GOP still lashing out - voting against debates on networks making Hillary Clinton movies.

Madness? I don't know what to think, but it seems to be cutting nose off to spite face.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the Democrats who refused to debate on Fox?

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did that happen?

In any case, Fox is an entertainment channel, not a news channel.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would debate Foxes? It's a no-vote from Chickens.

Re:Stats:

[craigminah]

Not sure how you don't think NBC and CNN both airing complimentary movies promoting Hillary while ignoring the ugly facts that would detract from her isn't partisan. I for one am happy the GOP got a pair and did this...screw NBC and CNN. Hillary has done little to warrant being President.

Re: Stats:

[craigminah]

Fox is biased to the right somewhat but they aren't bowing to the left like MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox was created by a right-wing ideologue who has the British government in his pocket (Murdoch) and his first hire was Roger Ailes, a long-time GOP political hack.

And you don't thing they have an agenda?

Remember: Fox admits they don't fact check, and Fox went to court (and won) to defend their right to knowingly broadcast as truth what they knew to be lies, with their defense being that the law doesn't say they can't. That's a HELL of a position for a "news" outlet to take, don't you think. And please don't tell me this was just a local Fox affiliate going rogue; if Fox corporate didn't want that argument made, it wouldn't have happened,

Go read it for yourself:

caselaw. findlaw. com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/ 1310807.html

Couldn't make this up: captcha is INIQUITY

Re:Stats:

[fustakrakich]

Hillary has done little to warrant being President.

Maybe you're eying a different metric. Looking at the numbers, she appears more than qualified.

Re:Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know if the Hillary movie will be hagiography or not: it isn't written yet.

But the GOP went NUTZ when CBS tried to broadcast in 2003 a docudrama about the Reagan's for which they had documentary evidence (primary source documents, personal interviews, existing public videotape) that established each and every scene or piece of dialogue as true. It just didn't make Reagan look godlike enough, and touched on the (obvious) fact that St. Reagan was quite senile while in office. Don't take my word for Reagan's senility in office; read what the Tower Commission said about Reagan's "confused and incoherent" testimony and note that the Tower Commission was run by a long-time GOP apparatchik (former GOP Senator John Tower). Even Reagan's own lawyer was stunned at how brain-dead Reagan was in the lead up to the Iran-Contra hearings and in his testimony during to the Tower Commission. See Cannon's biography for details on that...

So, when confronted with unpalatable truths, the party of freedom and liberty goes for censorship by prior restraint.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

When you discover that everyone else is wrong, it's far more likely that you are wrong. For the most part it is rare that the wisdom of the masses is wrong, but some exceptions include the flat earth, heliocentric universe, and many other falsehoods perpetuated by religion. FoxNews is the network of choice for politically minded religious people, most of which lean right.

What is more likely, that one network is massively skewed to the right and on display in countless doctors offices, hospital lobbies, and sports bar in America, or that every major network save one being part of a massive Liberal conspiracy to shape public opinion?

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

or, you could just admit you're a Party Apologist who refuses to acknowledge that the left in this country is just as corrupt and incompetent as the neocon right. Get your mind out of that dichotomous rut it's in. There are other options out there.

Re: Stats:

[epyT-R]

No, that is argumentum ad populum. I can't believe you said that it's rare for the wisdom of the masses to be wrong. Are you seriously joking? Individuals can be erudite and rational at times, some more than others, but put a bunch of people, smart or dumb, in a room, add some political commentary, and watch them devolve into 8yos. The mob is almost NEVER right.

Fox massages the ego of the neocon right, just as cnn and msnbc massage the egos of the left. By accident, it can turn out that one or the other admits more of the truth as they tow various party lines on various subjects, but it's purely by accident. If you still believe that you're getting better quality information from one or the other most of the time, it's YOUR emotional bias you need to check.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

No.
The left attracts people who:
1. view themselves as intellectually superior while they are really interested in slaking their thirst for emotional experiences. Things like self-anointed victimhood, mass-'guilt', loathing of own culture/gender/race, are all examples of this. A leftist is the first to say 'check your privilege' while sitting in starbucks drinking overpriced coffee and using his overpriced laptop. There are plenty of examples of this across race, gender, and, now, sexual preferences and weight.

2. False. Leftists pretend to be open and accepting, but when challenged, they become as intolerant as Stalin, Hitler, Polpot, Che guevara, Kim jong il etc. They are as dogmatic as westboro baptist church at a gay parade, and have no problem with censorship or throwing people into prison to silence opposition. Even moderate leftists in this country regularly advocate censorship of expression that is not 'politically correct,' and have no problem using state funded institutions (like public schools) to distribute their propaganda.

3. No. Leftists prefer to pick the winners. This is what identity politics is all about. It's not enough to encourage a group to participate in something, as they'd rather force private institutions to establish quotas and preferential treatment for them...and if it doesn't result in some childlike 50/50 split, they assume the institutions aren't trying hard enough or are resisting. In the end, they'd rather have these institutions government controlled anyway. Equal opportunity is all well and good, but that is NOT what things like title 9 and feminism are truly about. The proof is in the laws lobbied for, and how they're interpreted by the courts (selectively based on the cross section of groups the defendant belongs to).

The neocon right attracts people who:
1. if they are christian, view the morality taught by the religion as truth, yes. This is little different than how north korean leftists treat kim il sung, or how the soviets treated lenin. Both are irrational.

2. They are an interesting bunch in this area, but the problem with moral ambiguity is that loophole the lefists use to justify doing whatever the hell they want: logic and reason alone can be used to justify just about anything when facts are selectively ignored.

3. Agreed. Life is an open field and you are in control, but the consequences are your responsibility. The left wants to absolve you of that responsibility, but at the cost of this liberty.

Re: Stats:

[JackieBrown]

Every airport, job, and sports bar I have been to plays CNN. I spent a lot of time in hospitals watching over my wife, and that was the only place I saw Fox New (but the TV next to it had CNN.)

I guess it is possible that only Texas defaults to CNN, but based on every stereotype I read here and online, you would assume the opposite.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

MSNBC doesn't pander to the left? Really? Please.

Re:Stats:

[Mashiki]

You mean besides leaving americans high and dry, and bending over backwards to kiss Obama's ass on every scandal that's come out of his administration.

Re:Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Both big parties are going to fuck you in the ass. The Republicans are just more honest about it.
 
Seriously, think about it. We knew what Bush was... he didn't hide it. Obama and his friend all promised a turn around and a new age of transparency. Romney more or less said he was going to say the course. Which one lied more?
 
I still don't plan on voting for either big party in the next few dozen of elections but if nothing else I can respect the Republicans for having the balls to be more honest about their plan for fucking us.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

When you discover that everyone else is wrong, it's far more likely that you are wrong.
 
Bullshit. I only bought into this shit during the first Clinton election. It's the last time I ever voted for either big party.
 
  For the most part it is rare that the wisdom of the masses is wrong, but some exceptions include the flat earth, heliocentric universe, and many other falsehoods perpetuated by religion.
 
Again, bullshit and you're trying to distort history and religion by doing this kind of bullshit lip service. Within a few decades of the scientists accepting the heliocentric model en mass the Catholic church was also on board. Galileo was brought down because he refused to accept that the church was open to new ideas and he wanted to shit on them more. He should have cut his losses and the world would have progressed with this knowledge more than a century than they did. People still making claims to this falsehood today are still trying to whip the church for their short sightedness. Meanwhile it's not getting either side closer to a common ground based on science. It's only breading resentment and more schism. No one who honestly stands for truth want that. They'll move on and bring everyone who's willing to listen with them. Going for the low hanging fruit is a much more productive measure than beating on those who refuse to listen to any amount of proof.
 
  FoxNews is the network of choice for politically minded religious people, most of which lean right.
 
True but left leaning media is just as false in their presentation and just as guilty of skewing the truth. Just because they support your point of view with the same level of hyperbole doesn't make them better. It makes them just as fucked up for lying.
 
  What is more likely, that one network is massively skewed to the right and on display in countless doctors offices, hospital lobbies, and sports bar in America, or that every major network save one being part of a massive Liberal conspiracy to shape public opinion?
 
Trying to sway people to a false dichotomy? Fuck you. Both of these can be and are true. Step outside of your Ds versus Rs mindset and you'll end up hating both.
 
Seriously, it doesn't take much to step up. Drop your major political party alignment by registering third party (not independent) and give third parties a leg to stand on and you'll finally see progress instead of business as usual. Or keep cheerleading for the fucks who are bought and sold like cattle and lead yourself down the gangplank to the slaughterhouse.
 
I'd like to think that you could make a clear conscious choice but I've found that most people aren't free thinkers, just major party goons. Keep fucking yourself and everyone else. I can't expect better at this point.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are working with a pretty deranged and self-serving version of left if you think anyone but MSNBC is biased to the left.

Re:Stats:

[fustakrakich]

Your righteous indignation is noted. But that's not how the institutional 'contributors' see things.

Re: Stats:

[tendrousbeastie]

"Trying to sway people to a false dichotomy? Fuck you."

Is this what political discourse in the US is like? What's wrong with using good manners while talking to people you disagree with?

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Good analysis of Left and Right there!

Re:Stats:

[Mashiki]

True enough on that. After all, all that BS must be tasty. There's no other explanation.

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my goodness. Fox literally invented partisan news channels in the name of "Fair and Balanced". I imagine you are either on Fox Corporation's payroll, or just really, really misinformed (much like any typical Fox viewer).

Re: Stats:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Florida, Fox News channel plays just about everywhere. I have never seen any other channel in my 12 years living here.

Cory Booker

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't really need analytics or anything of the sort to win. He was a shoo-in with massively higher name recognition than his opponent(s). If campaign advisors want to make a name for themselves, rather than just collect a paycheck, they should work for candidates with a slim-to-even chance of winning.

Re:Cory Booker

[Anonymous Coward]

Two of the other democratic candidates were congressional representatives and well known in at least portions of NJ.

"the world is changing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want scientific advances in getting me to vote for someone: I want scientific advances in governmental process. I want someone who understands that our approach to representative democracy is poorly implemented. I want someone willing to say that our electoral algorithms are totally crap. I want someone to take on strategic voting scientifically, and I want someone who acknowledges the problem of congress failing to pass things supported by > 3/4 of people (thats enough to pull of a constitutional amendment if they got their act together).

If you kick ass at big data, go fix the veterans administration instead of trying to control my vote; that might even earn my support.

Re:"the world is changing"?

[b4dc0d3r]

The whole point is you are an outlier. Politics is all about mobilizing an uninformed yet passionate base. The more ignorant and irrational the better.

And nowhere near enough reasonable people to make a dent.

The two party system is the ultimate stasis point. There is always someone to demonize, and always someone on your side. You can hate a person and live their party due to normal turnover. The ultimate straw man to draw attacks without real harm.

And the few reasonable and intelligent people are irrelevant.

Who would hire the Romney failures?

[vilanye]

There were so many voters that they didn't even know existed.

Anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence knew Romney didn't have a chance to even make it close, much less win, yet Romney et.al. believed in their make believe statistics. Which is why they where throwing money away in WI and PA where they had zero chance when they were behind in OH,CO, IA and FL, places they at least had a decent shot at.

On the other hand, Obama's team was first class and knew exactly where to spend money, down to specific districts and won easily.

I know who I would hire.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has the CIA, FBI and NSA working on his side, with the IRS going after anyone who didn't joing the Obamacult. When you have the full resources of the government propaganda apparatus on your side, it's going to be tough to win.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[s.petry]

While correct that it works, it's a horrible and method that should be shunned. A campaign is not supposed to be about marketing, it's supposed to be about voting someone into office that will look out for the citizens best interests. You simply don't get that by voting for people based on fast-food type advertizing and giving away phones. Marketing gets you what we have for a President and House currently (and all the way back to the 70s), which has not been working very well.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[vilanye]

Not an Obama fan, just stating the truth of the matter.

I guess Bush used the NSA, etc to help him in 2004, eh?

You don't realize that the rank and file of the government organizations are not political appointees, just your average joe working a job.

The IRS went after non-profits that were engaging in direct political activity, like they should have been doing the past 30 years. If you want to play in the game you have to pay. It is illegal to claim non-profit status and engage in politics as that organization.

Right wing hate groups like Focus on the family and the moral majority have been breaking the law for decades. These types of groups(no matter the political leanings) need to be shut down and its adminstrators tossed in jail for tax-evasion.

Obama won because he had the best marketing and market research, period.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[vilanye]

I do agree with you in part, but even if you have the best interests of the people, you still need to market yourself to win any election. From a local school board member all the way up to the President.

How do you get your views out there? By marketing. Just because you have a pure heart, doesn't mean it isn't marketing.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[QilessQi]

Jimmy James beautifully sums up the virtues of advertising in this NewsRadio clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JGKTgfpeUs

Re: Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex Lundry was a teacher of mine in highschool, for a few months, before he ditched us mid-year to start his political gig. He liked to brag about his perfect SAT scores, etc. Anyways, how is this relevant? I think the guy is bright, charismatic, and a great self-promoter, but as his portfolio suggests, he's no leading mind in the field of data science.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[fustakrakich]

Marketing gets you what we have for a President and House currently (and all the way back to the 70s), which has not been working very well.

You're not seeing this from the designers' point of view.. You only need to build the structure strong enough to keep the rain out... Anything more is excessive.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[s.petry]

You are confusing public speaking with marketing. A politician should be able to voice his concerns to the people, and the people should agree with them in their suggestions for remedy and changes. Marketing is about creating excitement based on extraneous information that has little to nothing to do with the product.

If you described a hamburger using just the ingredients, how many people would buy it? If you add pretty girls in skimpy outfits and handsome muscular men saying "mmm" in a sensual way with neon light placement and fake hamburgers that look nothing like the actual product, what happens?

We know that marketing works, but when it comes to politicians fake people do not tend to look out for the best interests of society.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Given that campaigning for political office was well described by Macchiavelli in his book "The Prince", published 1532, it seems to have been a fundamental part of politics and of any leadership since the the invention of the printing press. I think we can safely say it's built into human society.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[blahplusplus]

"A campaign is not supposed to be about marketing, it's supposed to be about voting someone into office that will look out for the citizens best interests."

Many human beings (and hence citizens) don't know what their interests are unfortunately because the way the mind reasons doesn't work how we thought it did. Western governments are based on enlightenment view of citizenship that science shows is totally false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[s.petry]

The inventor of the Republic wisely stated "The success of the Republic requires that the citizens are highly educated." and "In order for a Republic to succeed a Political class of citizens must be guarded against.". I'm not sure why you would promote a book that was either satire against self proclaimed nobles abusing citizens or a lesson book for abuse, over "The Republic".

Simply because something was written should not mean it has to match reality. Pardon me for an abrupt departure, those pesky Hobbits are digging up my carrots again.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Tablizer]

Whaddya expect from a species that just evolved from poo-flinging apes? The flinging never went away, just changed delivery mechanism.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[timeOday]

Hey, I never knew the guy who played the boss at News Radio was the same guy who said "I believe you have my stapler" and burned down the building in Office Space.

Just when I thought today was a total write-off.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[vilanye]

I feel I am on the wrong side of things here because I despise marketing whores and ignore marketing as much as possible and when I can't I put that company on my do not buy list, because they were obnoxious enough to get my attention.

But what the candidate is doing when giving speeches/talking to people IS marketing.

They are telling them who they are, what they believe and what they hope to accomplish. To put a crass spin on it, they are buffing and polishing the product(themselves) to get people to not only vote for them, but to get people to volunteer their time and make phone calls and knock on doors on your behalf.

Whether you like Obama or not, you can't deny his ability to get people out there for him. He had dozens of offices in every state, sometimes10:1 or better compared to what Romney did.That is marketing.

Re: Who would hire the Romney failures?

[vilanye]

The results obviously point to that.

Just like that "unskewed polls" clown, he had no mathematical methodology and no mathematical training of any real sort, and even though he was wrong he is still listened to by the extreme right-wingers that don't want facts just supposition that supports their invalid view of "reality".

You would think it would be painful to live in such a turbulent reality distortion chamber, but they seem to like it.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also had districts in key battleground states with 100%+ turnout and 100% Obama votes. That's real great analytics there.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew what Romney stood for and what Obama stood for. While I have deep differences with Obama, I absolutely abhorred Romney at the most basic philosophical level. I formed these opinions on news reports over the years from a variety of sources with a variety of political outlooks. In my state, it was a done deal, Obama was going to win it be 7-15 points or so. Obama and Michele stopped by a couple of times and there were a couple of ads. A little less so for Romney. Why did either one of them need to do more or spend more in my state? They can only be so many places and spend so much money over the course of a campaign. The outcome was never in question here but I did not lack for information to make up my mind. So what is the problem?

It would have been extremely stupid to devote more resources here than necessary to secure the outcome. On the other hand in Ohio it was a VERY good idea to call every voter leaning your way and drive them to their polling place if necessary. It was very smart to have ground troops in place for months or years in advance of the election to make sure everyone was registered. It certainly did not hurt to do some advertising to help sway those still on the fence.

If a candidate can not properly manage an EFFECTIVE campaign, why would I let him manage the country? That is what we are talking about here. Not marketing so much as good management of time and resources to accomplish a given goal.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[Antique Geekmeister]

While reality does not need to match literature, the existence of literature including political campaigning from 500 years ago is a strong indication of its long history and common usage. Similarly, saying that "The Republic" describes justice and injustice does not mean that you are promoting injustice. It merely means that the concepts are old and commonly cited as guidelines for human behavior.

But since "The Republic" itself was a form of political advertising for standards of "justice", I hope that you can agree that political advertising or marketing is quite fundamental to human history or even human namture.

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[jamstar7]

They also had districts in key battleground states with 100%+ turnout and 100% Obama votes. That's real great analytics there.

Oh? 100%+? Some Chicago-style voting going on there? Got any cites?

Re:Who would hire the Romney failures?

[s.petry]

The point I was making is similar to your example. We can look at the philosophy and say "that is good" and "that is bad". The problems we see today are the same we have throughout history. The people in power believe in Aristotle's warped views, and Macchiavelli's disgusting views, and ruin society for personal gain (ruin being a long term result, but apparent to anyone looking at what happens.). Meanwhile, the citizens are kept ignorant to other Philosophies believing that what they are given by people in power is the only way society works.

It's up to us, the people not in power, to teach others the better Philosophies for society, as an elite won't do that. Quite frankly, the way the US was founded in theory was nearly identical to Socrates' description of a Republic. Slavery and Gender equality were very different, but the rest was done so well that adaptation to equality was not a difficult transition though it did take time.

My goal is, and has been for about 20 years, to get people to read and understand Plato's "The Republic". It's not easy, but I'd say I get a person a week to read at least a few critical chapters. Maybe once a month I get someone to purchase the book. If more of us did this, we would be able to change and adapt to a much better society.

Analtical Hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how much data you can aggregate, the tangible results come down to analytics. If you are constrained in trying to fit data into a preconceived result, much like what Romney's team was doing, you are going to fail.

Why would you hire Deep Root Analytics?

[whoever57]

Since the main claim to fame for the founder is failure of the Orca system, why hire them?

Re:Why would you hire Deep Root Analytics?

[spiritplumber]

Because some people will pay dearly for sensible-sounding but skewed analyses that can be used to raise money, or rally support. Why would anyone watch fox news if they are inaccurate? ... no, I don't like it either :(

Why only if votes are on the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

What annoys the hell out of me is that politians can be so scientific when collecting votes but never when actually discussing policy? Then it's always slogans and 'gotchas' and extremely superficial crap. Why never discuss the economy in detail? Get the numbers and try to figure out what they mean?

The media doesn't help much either. Why can they explain these statistics about voters in great detail, but when you see any numbers related to policy it's just fragments to 'prove' some stupid oppinion? Why never seriously analyse the numbers rather using it selectively to blame Bush/Obama/Clinton/etc. and pretend you're actually looking at the numbers.

Re:Why only if votes are on the line?

[mc6809e]

What annoys the hell out of me is that politians can be so scientific when collecting votes but never when actually discussing policy?

Because science works to help collect votes, but science doesn't actually work on voters.

Re:Why only if votes are on the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voters, schmoters. It doesn't work on
*donors*.

AC

Re:Why only if votes are on the line?

[vilanye]

Simple: Because our educational system is at such a low point that any serious economic policy discussion is going go over the majorities heads.

It is a sad state of affairs in the US. Take a freshman level macro or micro economics course and one freshman level calculus course and pass and you are now heads and shoulders above the average American in those topics.

Cory Booker

[Anonymous Coward]

He's been national news for a few years nobody knows the other candidates. Never mind rushing into burning buildings and saving the people inside.
I can't vote in NJ but I like wish I could!

but the world is changing

[fustakrakich]

No it's not. The character of the politician (and the people who vote for them) has remained the same for thousands of years. Bunch of dam carny hucksters they are, and always will be as long as the tactic works. These 'scientists' are just trying to 'improve' the art of book making.

Smart

[th3rmite]

This is absolutely awesome. They are using science to figure out the most effective lies.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you woke up. They've been doing it for scores, going back to the 1800s.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, almost absolutely awesome.

Maybe not awesome at all.

Re:Smart

[3seas]

So Science huh, well here are the facts, research them yourself if you do not believe me,

The 2012 election turnout of qualified voters was the lowest percentage of such voter turnout since before 1948, perhaps of all time as my research only went back that far.
The qualified voter turnout percentage in the 2012 presidential election was around 50% and this was divided up between Obama, Romney and others.

The real winner of the 2012 election is the "No Vote" and what this says is that people are recognizing the .... well, the parent post about who can tell the best lies.... to bad there is only 5 mod points for if mod point were not limited..... Those of us who see past the lies might better be recognized.

Snake Oil Salesmen found a Goldmine

[Anonymous Coward]

All the "data" in the world is irrelevant. Obama won in '08 because the GOP under Bush fucked the global economy sideways then the GOP under Obama decided to make the ONLY focus of their 4 years to make Obama a 1 term president. These so called "data scientists" should give a big thank you to Mitch McConnell for guaranteeing them a Democrat landslide to stand next to and say "look, we predicted this obvious outcome that any 5th grader could deduce, hire us and we'll do the same for you!"

Re: Stats

[the eric conspiracy]

Um no.

The worst shill is MSNBC, by a lot. However Fox, CNN, etc really are about equal in their bias levels.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

But that's not the whole picture. The fact is they all suck, it's a matter of degree only. The quality of coverage is terrible, and has been driven that way by Fox' tabloid approach.

You know Slashdot is a forum for nerds....

[Anonymous Coward]

....when nobody sees what is wrong with the name "Deep Root Analytics" in over 25 comments

Re:You know Slashdot is a forum for nerds....

[Anonymous Coward]

people dye their hair. we all know. get over it.

Re:You know Slashdot is a forum for nerds....

[Anonymous Coward]

huhuhuhuh.. that was cool.. huhuhuhuh.... happy now?

We shouldn't have elections

[NotQuiteReal]

We should have a draft. We would get a far better representation.

Re:We shouldn't have elections

[eriks]

That is a great idea. At least until we have Multivac:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

But seriously. That would solve a lot of issues. A completely random selection of the public to sit in the Senate and the House would give a much more interesting cross section of the American public. Right now the idea probably wouldn't even be controversial. Even just doing that a few times, say, 20 years, and then letting elections proceed normally again (with sensible campaign finance rules) might fix a lot of things.

Would it create more issues than it solves? I don't think so. Though really only because the system is *so* friggin messed up, that even an idea that radical couldn't really hurt.

Will it happen? Dunno. I sure hope that SOMETHING good happens though, since it's looking more and more like most of us are totally screwed unless something does, or absolutely everyone just starts behaving like actual Human Beings. Don't know which is more likely.

Re:We shouldn't have elections

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been saying this for years.

I'm hoping it's the sort of draft where heavily armed military personnel bust down your door in the night and drag you off to D.C. for your term, leaving your wife and kids crying and wondering what the hell just happened.

You're then held at gunpoint - indeed, the guns are leveled directly with your head - while R. Lee Ermey screams at you to actually read the fucking legislation, you piece of fucking shit Senate maggot.

It's probably a good thing I don't have supreme political power. :D

Re:We shouldn't have elections

[riverat1]

Probably not after the paid lobbyists get done wining and dining them.

So elections are decided by social engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

What else is new?

Re: Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes? Consider your source. It's like expecting the Drudge Report to have a positive view of Daily Kos.

2012 was just the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

I am afraid of a computer system that will have data on every single person in America, and be used to determine appointments, promotions, acceptance to Universities, based on predicted political orientation and support. I bet this happens at the very top, but the ability to implement it on the middle and low levels, sounds dreadful.

95% of that was a waste

[mveloso]

Really, the data people were pretty marginal in the last election - not because they didn't have the data, but because they didn't know the right question to ask.

The election came down to about 400,000 votes in a few counties. The question should have been: how do we get the most number of voters in those specific counties to show up at the polls?

Obama's organization didn't matter - he got massive amounts of free press, so his get out the vote drive was pretty much moot. It's always a plus when the press is your shill. Plus, when you get 99% of the black and hispanic vote the rest of the vote doesn't really matter.

Romney blew it because his system crashed, according to reports. But even if it didn't, were they targeting the counties that mattered? I doubt it. Even Romney campaign isn't cold enough to focus on the 10 counties that mattered. But they should have. If they can't drag 700,000 people off their asses and to the polls then he has no business being POTUS.

Re:95% of that was a waste

[Anonymous Coward]

Romney blew it because he was an even more useless waste of space than Obama, and Republican voters stayed home in droves. A retarded ape should have been able to beat Obama in the last election, but not a RINO like Romney.

Re:95% of that was a waste

[vilanye]

You actually think that an extreme right winger could get the GOP nomination and win the general election?

That is an impressive reality distortion field you live in. I hope the GOP goes that way because maybe someday we will actually get a liberal president. Obama is fairly right wing on most things, it is just that the GOP has gone so far off the map to the right that he looks liberal from their far off position.

A true liberal would have ordered an investigation into the war crimes of the previous administration.

A true liberal would have reigned in the NSA.

A true liberal would have the bankers in court answering for their crimes.

In many ways Nixon, Ike, and Teddy Roosevelt were further to the left than Obama. Even Reagan pulled off a few things that would get him thrown out of the party today-raising taxes multiple times, illegal alien amnesty and a few other things. Like Bush I && II, I can't name one good thing that Obama has done.

I think it is more than clear by now that Obama obeys his corporate masters(who are right wingers themselves) without any question or resistance.

Re:95% of that was a waste

[vilanye]

The only GOP nominee that had a very good chance of beating Obama was Jon Huntsman. He could have picked up many states that the brain-dead Romney couldn't.

The guy is incredibly intelligent, tells it like it is, and actually has some honor, which of course makes him poison to the GOP.

If you don't want Hillary for President in 2016, talk this guy into switching parties and it is game over for Hillary, she will be banished into the closed of failed presidential candidates in the head museum..

Maybe he will join the green party and be able to win some states, but his best hope for winning is to move over to the dems.

Re:95% of that was a waste

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo buddy, NOW will you believe me that the New World Order is real?

Analytics didn't get Romney the nomination.

[jcr]

Plain, old-fashioned dirty tricks did.

-jcr

Re:Analytics didn't get Romney the nomination.

[Tablizer]

Yeah, money.

Re:Analytics didn't get Romney the nomination.

[jcr]

Not just money. Many instances of fraud.

-jcr

Re: Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

MSNBC is the official mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

big data

[Anonymous Coward]

We heard all the stories about how Obama's systems helped him target the right people to help him win re-election. And we recently heard the stories of how the NSA is storing all our emails and phone call metadata. I wonder why more people aren't putting 2 and 2 together.

The NSA data did not stop the Boston bombers, despite the fact that the US was specifically warned by Russia about them. If all this data couldn't help stop those amateur terrorists on US soil, what is it useful for?

Re: Stats

[Rockoon]

Forbes? Consider your source.

Ah, the source is Pew Research, not Forbes.

Now, we can debate the merits of Pew if you want, but I highly doubt that, because that would mean actually having an informed opinion about something, which clearly isnt important to the person that said 'consider your source' but got it fucking wrong.

Re: Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The source is Forbes, and the source's source is Pew Research.

Why are you talking about opinions? It's GOTV

[yemanja]

I'm kind of amazed that so many people here misunderstand what the Obama data was used for. It was not used to change minds, at least not primarily. It was used to identify people who might be persuaded to actually get out and vote and then to bug them until they did.

Why do they keep hiring the losers?

[bussdriver]

Romney and the GOP were living in the bubble they paid to create for their sucker fan base. Their "experts" were telling them what they wanted to hear-- that is for the customers not for the management. They were shocked at the results because their BAD DATA was divorced from reality. They bashed competent people like Nate Silver as being biased -- like they do with their conspiracy theories about all the climate scientists. If it doesn't please them, it just can't be reality! A few people like Rove, I don't think were drinking the coolaid, they just made mistakes as to the effectiveness of their scheming (to put it nicely; far more like cheating) and the other side changed tactics (they didn't notice. they should have. when you stop black people from voting and then they mail-vote or go early or replace the loss of Acorn with other groups... killing Acorn should have been delayed, it was replaced by the time the election came around.)

As far as playing the system to subvert democracy, they continue to invest heavily in that - far far more than the other side does. It's not racism, it is just an easy way to ID the groups they want to steal rights away from. If unemployed people were as easy to predict, they'd have made it harder for them to vote (they have subgroups they do that to already.) Sure the Dems would probably do the same things if they were so desperate; but they've nearly always benefited by HUGE margins with high turn out. Almost no incentive. If we could control the weather, it would be a huge battle for who controlled if rained on election days. Gone are the GOP believers in democracy, it is a war mentality in their party now; where there are no rules or ideals that are more important than winning the WAR. It doesn't take much investigation to see how the fanatics have taken over and even their terminology is war like. They put the opposition into the nearly the same target of hate as the Taliban. Speaking reason around them is akin to saying the world was spherical in a church 500 years ago. It's no wonder old republicans have no party.

Hindsight is 20/20. They can't predict which counties accurately enough and if they do... they change the nature of the situation - it's like time travel, by attempting to change things they impact the future as it develops. It is a complex dynamic situation with a lot of interconnections. Just changing some words in a speech to please one area could cause you to lose many more...

Romney was a bar of soap. He doesn't deserve much blame; they could have sold us another moron like Bush and done about as well.

Re: Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you recognize that Fox News started the whole race to the bottom in terms of journalism. Let's not forget how readily Fox News will put a (D) behind the name of any (R) politicians caught in a scandal, and they have been caught on it several tens of times.

SEO

[Lord Bitman]

Search Engine Optimisation all boils down to, in the end, "make websites that humans want to find, and search engines will tend over time to detect sites like yours". The SEO best-practices change all the time, but the ones which stick around tend also to be general usability best-practices.

There doesn't seem to be a similar rule for elections, ie "make candidates that humans want to govern them, and people will tend over time to elect candidates like yours".

Perhaps this is because nobody has actually tried such a strategy, but I expect it has more to do with the ideas that:
  1. having lots of choices and few choosers (the choosers being chosen by the masses) tends to work-out better than having lots of choosers (the masses) and few choices
  2. letting people benefit from more than one "winner" tends to work-out better than picking the top choice and throwing out everything else.