In a Roundabout Way

21 03 2018

West Palm Beach, Florida

Rush, today:

So they’re bragging about it, 332 electoral votes, and they think that social media did it. You know, Jim Geraghty, our old buddy at National Review, he raised a great question about all this. Let me ask all of you sitting across the glass and all of you here in this esteemed audience. Brian, Dawn, and Mr. Snerdley, let’s just for the sake of it say that you’re on social media, that you’re using Twitter and Facebook, and you get one of these ads. And this ad is trying to persuade you to vote for Hillary in 2016. Is such an ad gonna work on you?

Three people are shaking their heads in there. The point being just how effective is this stuff anyway? There’s a dangerous downside to this that’s gonna lead to the government regulating even more of what you and I are able to know and access. Because that’s happening here is that the American people are being portrayed as a bunch of pure idiots, literal dolts, and they’re all out there playing around on social media. And they’re telling each other lies about how great their lives are and they’re bragging about this and bragging about that.

And here comes this Messina guy, and he says (paraphrasing), “Yeah, our campaign on social media garnered 332 electorate votes.” What they’re trying to say is that their brilliant campaign, their brilliant use of social media made people vote a certain way. And I ask you to go do the same thing. Talk to your friends who you know were just dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters and you ask ’em if there would have been any ad that they saw — Facebook, Twitter, wherever — that would have changed their mind and made ’em vote for Hillary.

And I’ll guarantee you out of every 10 you’re not gonna have more than nine people tell you you’re full of it. It may even be a smaller ratio than that. The dangerous thing here is you got guys like Messina and all these other people that are bragging about Obama’s brilliant campaign like the New York Times wrote about in 2013, making it look like they were Svengalis, they were brilliant, and they had the unique ability to generate all of those votes.

Rush is, as millennialspeak goes, “throwing shade” on the very notion that the Obama 2012 data game really had any effect.

Which is Rush’s roundabout way of agreeing with me.

Remember my missive:  At first, I drank the kool-aid that Obama’s data game was effective.  But then as the months rolled on after re-election, we found out from credible high sample size exit survey data that the niche constituency groups that the Obama data game was supposed to appeal to turned out a bit less than and voted Obama slightly less than they did four years prior.  Strike one.  Then people who looked at deep level precinct data found that working class whites weren’t feeling ole Willard, and stayed home enough to change the outcomes of enough important states.  As we know, WCWs generally don’t respond to the data game, because they’re generally not that visible to internet social media.  Now, what the Obama 2012 people did do well when it came to WCWs using the kind of media they use, was engage in anti-Romney FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), and that did keep their turnout down.  But that had nothing to do with Faceberg.  Strike two.  Then came the dagger:  In the summer of 2013, the Census Bureau surveys and data on actual voter turnout showed the middle aged and especially elderly black women turned out in record numbers, even higher than they did in 2008, and we know who they voted for.  And we know that elderly black women aren’t exactly a wheel house Faceberg using demographic.  Strike three, you’re out.

The Obama 2012 data game was, again, as millennialspeak goes, a fail.

Advertisements




Fool Me Twice

28 02 2018

Manhattan

There’s something a little bit disconcerting going on within the Trump Tent.

What got me thinking about this and thinking this way is when we found out a few days ago that the OCGE is hiring his own digital-data-online manager from 2016, Brad Pascale, as his overall national campaign manager for 2020, (even though I don’t think he’ll have to worry about that).  On top of that, there’s this from a few days ago about the Trump 2016 campaign’s data game, and of course Pascale is mentioned.

What is disconcerting to me is that Trump is making the same mistake Obama did.

Remember, after Obama eked out re-election in 2012, for months and months after election day, all we heard about was the invincible juggernaut that was the Obama-DNC data game, and how it and it alone pushed Obama over the line.  Then in the middle of the next year, the Census Bureau released its voter turnout analysis, and found that the niche constituencies that the Obama 2012 data game heavily appealed to had lower turnout rates than they did in 2008, and that combined with other post-election surveys which showed that those same constituencies voted Obama at slightly less percentages (even if for him at landslide proportions) in 2012 compared to 2008, should have ended all the MUH DATA talk forever.  Too, for the fact that the constituency that saved Obama’s bacon in 2012, elderly black women (EBW), aren’t really on the data game radar, and also for the fact that the way the Obama-Romney politics worked out, swing state rust belt workding class whites (SS RB WCWs) just weren’t feeling Willard.

Yet and still, almost everyone that drank the MUH DATA kool-aid before mid-2013 kept on believing it.

Fast forward to the present, Trump is making the same mistake, assigning way too much credit to MUH DATA for his own win.  Hence, giving Pascale the store for 2020.

Seriously, are we to think that Trump was able to flip the 2012 script in 2016, lowering the turnout of EBW and boosting the turnout of SS RB WCWs, because of Pascale’s clever use of Facebook?  How many EBWs and SS RB WCWs are even on Facebook?  The answer is hardly any — Old fashioned politics caused their voting or non-voting habits both in 2012 and 2016.





Paranoia Is Sexy, Reality Is a Basic Bitch

21 11 2016

Manhattan

A few current years ago, if you read a lot of nodes that later came to be known as alt-right, you read these two speculated truisms about conventional politics:

(1) The Iraq War was such a debacle that the American national electorate would never again trust the Presidency to a Republican (or even a Democrat) that was too close to and comfortable with neoconservative foreign policy ideology.

(2) Paul Ryan’s toying around with relatively drastic changes in Social Security and Medicare cost Mitt Romney the state of Florida.

And what happened this year?

The Republican nominee all but wrote a promise in his own blood to leave SS&M as-is, and said with enough credible evidence to be believed that he opposed the Iraq War.

And guess what?  He won both Florida and the Presidency.

Among other reasons why he did.

Easy, practical, easily digestible.

But no, it’s much more sexy to cook up theories that Vladimir Putin hacked Facebook to insert fake news in its news feed.





Strange New Respect Mode: On

25 10 2016

Los Angeles

Breitbart:

Obama: McCain and Romney Were ‘Honorable,’ Wouldn’t Have Worried About ‘General Course’ of US If They Had Won

On Monday’s broadcast of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” President Obama said of his former opponents Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), “they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Obama stated, “[T]here is something qualitatively different about the way Trump has operated in the political sphere. I — look, I ran against John McCain. I ran against Mitt Romney. Obviously, I thought that I could do a better job, but they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Funny, I remember 2008 and 2012 pretty well; I was a thirtysomething during both of those election seasons, and I was lucky to squeeze out one more Presidential season as a thirtysomething. And what I remember is that John McCain was a dangerous hot head who would be Bush’s third term and couldn’t be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button, even though he was an old fogey klutz because he had never sent an e-mail in his life. Mitt Romney killed women because he denied them health care after having hog tied his dog to the roof of his gas guzzling SUV.

If nothing drastic changes in the country and Hillary wins, then four years from now, as Hillary is running for re-election versus the Republican nominee of 2020, everyone then will develop strange new respect for Donald Trump. “You know, at least he was a moderate-liberal on social issues, he openly appealed to LGBTQ, made Peter Thiel the first gay RNC speaker, and had some innovative proposals on a lot of things and genuinely cared about working people. Unlike the evil reprobate the Republicans sent up this year, a social issue Neanderthal and total elitist corporate-plutocrat shill who can’t deviate even one iota from conservative orthodoxy.”  In fact, I’m making this my first post in the new category “Campaign 2020” so we’ll be able to check back in four years to see if I’m right; of course, if Trump wins, I wouldn’t possibly be able to be right unless he declines to run for a second term.





It’s Nothing Now

11 10 2016

Kirkwood

And it was nothing four years ago, either.

Claire, yesterday, to the WSJ:  It was just an accidental misstatement, a slight confusing of the science.  It’s no way as horrible as Trump’s locker room talk!

And I certainly agree.  Which is, in turn, no way as horrible as Bill Clinton’s actions and his wife’s attacks on the victims.

But let’s talk about Claire’s new found clarity about my former boss.





No Problems Here

28 08 2016

Manhattan

Note that the record for white Evangelicals voting Republicans is 79%, for Romney in 2012 and Bush in 2004.





Miss You Not

14 03 2016

Your Blogmeister’s Hotel Room

Ben Shapiro and Michelle (Corey didn’t assault me) Fields are leaving Breitbart.

Good for Breitbart.

Shapiro, one of the bigger Trump haters in the the neo-to-lamer right universe, was singing a different tune five years ago.