What do believe the content of the "message" was? Is it a set of deliverables? What connection do you think there is between the message and actual policy that Trump has enacted?
Because the US electorate has shown itself to be, over the last 40-50 years, easily manipulated against “the other”?
The fact that Reagan - one of those destructive and incidiously evil influences on modern US politics - isn’t villified but in fact bizarrely lionized by a large section of the population should be proof of that enough.
And Facebook directly helped Obama in 2012. But rather than getting all partisan about it - the debate needs to be is this OK for any politician of any alignment?
No, they didn’t. Trump won because people liked his message. Plain and simple. These companies existed long before 2016 and if they couldn’t help other legitimate candidates get elected, what could they have done so magical for Trump?
Is it really so hard to believe that people didn’t like Hillary and didn’t think that another 8 years of the same would be good for them?
... based almost entirely on votes from one, unusually populous state, with different economics and demographics from the rest of the country. Winning one state by a landslide and losing 48 others (or whatever the exact numbers were) by a hairsbreadth still means you lost in 47 states.
Hillary quite openly stated that she didn't care about the so-called "flyover" states (the "deplorables"), why is anyone surprised that in return, they voted against her?
Not true in the slightest - Hillary won basically every single urban area. That was true across the whole nation.
Where the most people are, actually interacting with folks from different backgrounds and places, she won.
You’re spreading the same lies that were bought and paid for by people like CA. It’s no surprise you’re arguing against the effectiveness of these people: you’re the poster child for their victims.
> Hillary quite openly stated that she didn't care about the so-called "flyover" states (the "deplorables"), why is anyone surprised that in return, they voted against her?
You know, yours is the worst kind of lie, the kind Trump is famous for. Why did you write that?
(Incidentally, consider why former Secretary of State Clinton always referred to by Trump and his sexist ilk as "Hillary")
Here's Clinton's full comments, and you tell us all right here why the difference between her statement and what you wrote. Clinton in no way said "flyover" state people are "deplorable".
In fact, she said very much exactly the opposite.
"In too many places still, LGBT Americans are singled out for harassment and violence. You can get married on Saturday, post your pictures on Sunday and get fired on Monday. That's why we've got to continue the forward march of progress."
"And we cannot do it alone. I cannot do it alone. I'm not like Donald Trump, who says, 'I alone can fix it.' I've never quite figured out what it is he alone can fix. But that's not what you'll hear from me. I think we have to do this together. So, together we're gonna pass the Equality Act to guarantee full equality. We're going to put comprehensive quality affordable healthcare within reach for more people, including for mental health and addiction. We're going to take on youth homelessness, and as my wonderful, extraordinary, great daughter said, we are going to end the cruel and dangerous practice of conversion therapy. We're going to keep working toward an AIDS-free generation, a goal that I set as secretary of state, and with your help we're going to pass comprehensive gun laws. ..."
"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
First of all, I'd argue the effectiveness of marketing is pretty well established.
Second, I do think you have a point. To some degree these kinds of tactics have been employed before, but a) perhaps not as maliciously as this time, and b) I believe the landscape of 'influence' changed with the arrival of phenomena like Facebook as mobile phones, and perhaps it just took a while to properly 'weaponise' them.
On the one hand, I feel that this whole kerfuffle is a bit too hysterical considering, as you say, these companies existed before 2016. But on the other hand, many people worried about these things before and it's only now that the concerns are getting (hopefully) the attention they deserve. That's a good thing.
So while I think you have a point, ultimately I don't agree with your conclusion. I do not think it was 'just' that people didn't like Hillary and somehow happened to choose against their own interest.
> I do not think it was 'just' that people didn't like Hillary and somehow happened to choose against their own interest.
This is exactly the flawed takeaway from this election.
Mainstream voters kept telling us that they are not optimistic about their economic future, they kept complaining about their jobs going overseas, they kept complaining about immigration and our response was: ”it is better for you”.
We lost 2016 and will lose 2020.
Political advertising has existed for a long time. In news papers, radio, tv, and on social media. Most advertisers and political ad agencies will tell you that pschographic targeting isn’t useful at all. The only thing that works is raise money or “get out the vote” campaigns.
More people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump. You are generalizing your hatred of her to be a country wide fact. this is how propaganda works, by creating narratives.
> Is it really so hard to believe that people didn’t like Hillary and didn’t think that another 8 years of the same would be good for them?
Yes it's unthinkable for a particularly vocal portion of the electorate that rabidly supported her and Clinton herself. Hence the non-stop "X rigged the system for Trump ... it's the only explanation!" rather than holistically looking at the causes of defeat.
The simplest example of this is Clinton not visiting a swing state like Wisconsin at all during the election. Compare that to Trump holding ten rallies there[1]. Is it really a shocker that a State chose the candidate that actually went to their doors, spoke to them, and listened to them?
Is there actually any evidence that CA are actually good at data analysis? Everything I read makes it seem like they were one of the many "big data consultancies" of the era that were basically snake oil.
(Which is not to say what they did was not wrong, just that I doubt it was effective)
Kogan was pretty open in his BBC radio interview that his research on personality types and political views (which was the nominal purpose of gathering his data) shows only very weak effects.
I could easily believe that CA's data set provided valuable information not available otherwise about people's political views (if it recorded what people had read and 'liked'), but I'm very sceptical that there was any particularly clever analysis going on.
And Media Matters, Correct The Record, Twitter, Facebook, Google, CNN, NBC, Comcast, Dreamworks, Microsoft, Fahr LLC and many others helped Hillary but failed miserably.
The rah rah USA USA USA bullshit of my youth took a long time to get deprogrammed from my brain. Marketing/propaganda toward youths is even more insidious and effective over a lifetime. Although, facebook/twitter/etc have really upped the game for adults.
Here in Mexico, all I remember is the anti-Trump narrative that was being pushed the by mainstream news companies (in a scarily coordinated matter). If these organizations were able to defeat this non-stop barrage of articles and news coverage, then they should be commended for taking on essentially the entire American establishment.
Perhaps all the attention from this news coverage (almost all negative) gave Trump the edge.
Perhaps the average person realized that something is fishy about all this coordinated negative coverage and looked for alternative sources.
Perhaps his message was powerful and important enough for most people that they could ignore the negative media assault.
Either way, I think it's time to stop looking for scapegoats and move on.
This is how you know you’re a conspiracy theorist: when multiple sources report the same thing, you assume it’s a sign of scary collusion instead of the simpler fact that it’s the truth.
Worst thing about all of the information on Cambridge Analytica that has come out, is that now I'm skeptical of anything I read on these forums that is even remotely political.
I don't know if I'll ever get that trust back, (and maybe I shouldn't, skepticism of what you read on the internet is good), but it makes it pretty clear to me that the original promise of the internet will never be realized with the internet in its current form. The reality is that you can't trust any information gleaned from a forum or discussion website. Even something like HN, which holds itself out to be a little better than most in terms of elevating the discussion, is not immune to professional manipulation.
27 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 62.2 ms ] threadIt seems like maybe we should try to understand why the message was so effective?
The fact that Reagan - one of those destructive and incidiously evil influences on modern US politics - isn’t villified but in fact bizarrely lionized by a large section of the population should be proof of that enough.
The only similarity is they both used social media.
Is it really so hard to believe that people didn’t like Hillary and didn’t think that another 8 years of the same would be good for them?
Hillary quite openly stated that she didn't care about the so-called "flyover" states (the "deplorables"), why is anyone surprised that in return, they voted against her?
Where the most people are, actually interacting with folks from different backgrounds and places, she won.
You’re spreading the same lies that were bought and paid for by people like CA. It’s no surprise you’re arguing against the effectiveness of these people: you’re the poster child for their victims.
You know, yours is the worst kind of lie, the kind Trump is famous for. Why did you write that?
(Incidentally, consider why former Secretary of State Clinton always referred to by Trump and his sexist ilk as "Hillary")
Here's Clinton's full comments, and you tell us all right here why the difference between her statement and what you wrote. Clinton in no way said "flyover" state people are "deplorable".
In fact, she said very much exactly the opposite.
"In too many places still, LGBT Americans are singled out for harassment and violence. You can get married on Saturday, post your pictures on Sunday and get fired on Monday. That's why we've got to continue the forward march of progress."
"And we cannot do it alone. I cannot do it alone. I'm not like Donald Trump, who says, 'I alone can fix it.' I've never quite figured out what it is he alone can fix. But that's not what you'll hear from me. I think we have to do this together. So, together we're gonna pass the Equality Act to guarantee full equality. We're going to put comprehensive quality affordable healthcare within reach for more people, including for mental health and addiction. We're going to take on youth homelessness, and as my wonderful, extraordinary, great daughter said, we are going to end the cruel and dangerous practice of conversion therapy. We're going to keep working toward an AIDS-free generation, a goal that I set as secretary of state, and with your help we're going to pass comprehensive gun laws. ..."
"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
To differentiate her from Bill, obviously. Exactly the same way as the second Bush was universally known as Dubya.
Second, I do think you have a point. To some degree these kinds of tactics have been employed before, but a) perhaps not as maliciously as this time, and b) I believe the landscape of 'influence' changed with the arrival of phenomena like Facebook as mobile phones, and perhaps it just took a while to properly 'weaponise' them.
On the one hand, I feel that this whole kerfuffle is a bit too hysterical considering, as you say, these companies existed before 2016. But on the other hand, many people worried about these things before and it's only now that the concerns are getting (hopefully) the attention they deserve. That's a good thing.
So while I think you have a point, ultimately I don't agree with your conclusion. I do not think it was 'just' that people didn't like Hillary and somehow happened to choose against their own interest.
This is exactly the flawed takeaway from this election.
Mainstream voters kept telling us that they are not optimistic about their economic future, they kept complaining about their jobs going overseas, they kept complaining about immigration and our response was: ”it is better for you”.
We lost 2016 and will lose 2020.
Political advertising has existed for a long time. In news papers, radio, tv, and on social media. Most advertisers and political ad agencies will tell you that pschographic targeting isn’t useful at all. The only thing that works is raise money or “get out the vote” campaigns.
Yes it's unthinkable for a particularly vocal portion of the electorate that rabidly supported her and Clinton herself. Hence the non-stop "X rigged the system for Trump ... it's the only explanation!" rather than holistically looking at the causes of defeat.
The simplest example of this is Clinton not visiting a swing state like Wisconsin at all during the election. Compare that to Trump holding ten rallies there[1]. Is it really a shocker that a State chose the candidate that actually went to their doors, spoke to them, and listened to them?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_Donald...
(Which is not to say what they did was not wrong, just that I doubt it was effective)
I could easily believe that CA's data set provided valuable information not available otherwise about people's political views (if it recorded what people had read and 'liked'), but I'm very sceptical that there was any particularly clever analysis going on.
The rah rah USA USA USA bullshit of my youth took a long time to get deprogrammed from my brain. Marketing/propaganda toward youths is even more insidious and effective over a lifetime. Although, facebook/twitter/etc have really upped the game for adults.
Perhaps all the attention from this news coverage (almost all negative) gave Trump the edge.
Perhaps the average person realized that something is fishy about all this coordinated negative coverage and looked for alternative sources.
Perhaps his message was powerful and important enough for most people that they could ignore the negative media assault.
Either way, I think it's time to stop looking for scapegoats and move on.
This is how you know you’re a conspiracy theorist: when multiple sources report the same thing, you assume it’s a sign of scary collusion instead of the simpler fact that it’s the truth.
I don't know if I'll ever get that trust back, (and maybe I shouldn't, skepticism of what you read on the internet is good), but it makes it pretty clear to me that the original promise of the internet will never be realized with the internet in its current form. The reality is that you can't trust any information gleaned from a forum or discussion website. Even something like HN, which holds itself out to be a little better than most in terms of elevating the discussion, is not immune to professional manipulation.