The Data Game Doesn’t Matter (That Much)

1 06 2017



Clinton: I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win

And also, the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy.


Clinton hit at the Democratic National Committee, too: The DNC, she claimed, handed her an inferior data operation when she won the party’s nomination last summer, while the Republicans had invested heavily in data infrastructure between 2012 and 2016.

But wait!  All we heard for four years was that the Democrats’ data game was first rate and first class.  Now we have to sit hear and listen to her caterwaul about the DNC’s inferior data operation?

From what I can ascertain, DNC/HRC’s data game > RNC/Trump’s, in 2016, and DNC/Obama’s > RNC/Romney’s in 2012.  So, why were the actual outcomes different?

Because in politics, big data don’t matter that much.  See also:  Debates, money.  Sure, you have to have a good enough data game, even if it’s not better than the other person, and you have to do well enough in debates, even if you don’t win them, and you have to have enough money, even if the other person has more.  Data, debates and money are pass/fail propositions, not competitive gradations.  If you pass all three, then the election comes down to other, traditional, way more important factors.

Because the techiest areas of the country are also some of the bluest, that’s why the blue team party will generally and consistently have a better data game than the red team.  From there, it’s a matter of how the data are used:  In 2012, the Obama team thought they used it well, but later we found out that what they used was irrelevant to the outcome of Obama’s victory.  Mainly because the niche “coalition of the ascendant” coalition that the Obama team data game revolved around had a lower turnout rate.  In 2014, the Democrats had more data, but the Republicans used their inferior infrastructure more effectively, by being able to identify, effectively target and turn out the right kind of niche constituencies, especially sporadic turnout red team leaning people.  In 2016, once again, D > R, but, based on bad assumptions which in turn were based on their hubris, Team HRC misused their superior data.




One response

5 06 2017

%d bloggers like this: