The impact of Big Data on the 2016 election

[Thomas]

I consider this a must read.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump

[mtangelsfan]

Wow.  

Very interesting.  (although I may want to stop posting on AW now)

Sorry peeps, no more "likes" from mt.

[Ordos]

19 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Wow.  

Very interesting.  (although I may want to stop posting on AW now)

Sorry peeps, no more "likes" from mt.

It's already too late for that.

[RallyMo]

I was indirectly referencing this article the other day on this board. It's fascinating. Very shrewd.

[Adam]

Straight outta House of Cards

[Ordos]

Quote

"Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven," Alexander Nix remembers.

I think this helps explain his seemingly haphazard deliveries and subjects that he flitters to. And I think it will guide how the rest of these 4 (maybe 8) years go. Unfortunately, I think it also proves how truly fucked we are going forward. 

For the Con side smiling? Just imagine this, data, marketing tactics, and message delivery, in the hands of someone charismatic, like Bill Clinton or Obama. /rant

[Thomas]

8 minutes ago, Ordos said:

For the Con side smiling? Just imagine this, data, marketing tactics, and message delivery, in the hands of someone charismatic, like Bill Clinton or Obama. /rant

It's like moneyball in baseball. The tactics will continuously evolve and 4 years will be an eternity. I think you understate Bill Clinton's ability to read the political tea leaves. It was well established that he followed opinion polls closely and was highly adept at conforming his message to them. And if the reports are true he knew the mistakes his wife's 2016 campaign was making, though was ignored. I think in whatever time period B. Clinton was placed in he would be ahead of the game in regards to tactics.

[Ordos]

That's my point, though. And I think Obama was just as wired in. The real impact is showing how individual that each of these messages will be going forward, rather than traditional mass media.

[the dude abides]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

Straight outta House of Cards

 

 

[Thomas]

15 hours ago, Ordos said:

That's my point, though. And I think Obama was just as wired in. The real impact is showing how individual that each of these messages will be going forward, rather than traditional mass media.

I think Obama was more big picture. He could command a room. Struggled a bit one on one at least in comparison. I'm not sure how effective this particular method would be to him. He's not going to bend his vision to 20 million different data points. Bill Clinton was more personable. He wasn't a great orator. See also the 1988 Dem. Convention. But was unmatched on personal interactions. For better and worse. This process would have fit him like a glove. What the new hotness will be in 2020 we do not know yet.

[Ordos]

I should clarify, I don't mean by personal interaction by the candidate, per se, but their election team. See the bit in the article on tailored digital messages to individuals, by geolocation, personality, etc.

These guys are becoming savvy at thinking like digital marketers, and as someone in that industry, that unnerves me.

[the dude abides]

Wow.  That article is both frightening and fascinating.

[Taylor]

Humanity over.

[Ordos]

Quote

“Audience groups are not necessarily aware that they are the research subjects and government’s role and/or third parties can be invisible,” he wrote.

Who's feeling warm and fuzzy?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-working-for-trumps-campaign-british-data-firm-eyes-new-us-government-contracts/2017/02/17/a6dee3c6-f40c-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cambridge-645pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b8c18ec9b564