# The Election and Data **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 6, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241 "2013-01-06T06:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/41 "2013-01-08T12:18:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, thanks for actually reading the link. However, I’m not sure if all advertisers actually do target individuals rather then demographic groups. The marketing classes I took 20 years ago certainly didn’t mention this, and I suspect a lot of advertisers are doing it the old fashioned way. Certainly Amazon is not. I can’t imagine that Georgia Pacific is on the cutting edge, and the the Kochs’ get that involved in that level anyhow. I doubt “all” advertisers do anything, but this is my favorite marketing story of the year: [How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/). This level of data analysis is already happening across a variety of businesses; as political campaigns gather more and more sophisticated and comprehensive voter data, and as technology allows for increased targeting of microniches, expect to see these techniques applied to political campaigns as well. They know where you live, what you drive, how much you make, where you went to school, causes you support, television shows you watch, products you buy and so forth - all that’s missing is a way to use that to finesse your vote or solicit funds from you. The Obama campaign is simply the furthest along this route at the moment, but there’s a long way yet to go. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/42 "2013-01-08T15:33:39Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Back in 2008 Mark Penn was the wunderkind strategist for Hillary Clinton with a specialty in microtargeting. It didn’t help her win the primary, in part because the liberal base didn’t like her voting for the Iraq war. It seemed that Penn was very slow to cotton to how the 2008 democratic primary worked, namely that it wasn’t winner-take-all, and delegates were being awarded proportionally by small geographic units. (precincts?) In many cases Clinton “won” a state, yet evenly split, or often came up short on delegates. Obama was able to build an early delegate lead while not doing all that much better than, or even falling behind Clinton in popular-vote terms. Recall the Clinton message that while she was behind on delegates, she had “won” more states than Obama? Meanwhile team Obama was targeting resources toward precincts (?) with an odd number of delegates, where the winner of near-ties could pick up one extra, and letting Clinton win where the even number of delegates would be split equally unless the result were very lopsided…while making sure that it didn’t get that lopsided. So beyond targeting voters, they were looking at where they would get the most bang for the buck with respect to the nuts and bolts of the election rules. It seems that Penn was doing fairly well at targeting and influencing voters, but not paying attention to where they lived and how many delegates they might deliver. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/43 "2013-01-08T17:47:38Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Obama’s team and Nate knew the situation from… drum roll… the polls. Ergo, the polls did not, in fact, show it to be a tight race at all, but were misinterpreted to that effect in some quarters (primarily by the punditocracy and the Romney camp, both of whom have motives too obvious to require comment). Nate got his data from the polls, true, and did his prediction on electoral votes, not the popular vote counts that showed it to be close. [Here](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally-voters/) is a link to the Technology Review story. And a relevant paragraph > [@](#): > > It is yet another thing to be right five months before you’re going to lose. As the 2010 midterms approached, Wagner built statistical models for selected Senate races and 74 congressional districts. Starting in June, he began predicting the elections’ outcomes, forecasting the margins of victory with what turned out to be improbable accuracy. But he hadn’t gotten there with traditional polls. He had counted votes one by one. His first clue that the party was in trouble came from thousands of individual survey calls matched to rich statistical profiles in the DNC’s databases. Core Democratic voters were telling the DNC’s callers that they were much less likely to vote than statistical probability suggested. Wagner could also calculate how much the Democrats’ mobilization programs would do to increase turnout among supporters, and in most races he knew it wouldn’t be enough to cover the gap revealing itself in Survey Manager’s tables. They did this kind of thing to a level that no pollster could afford. They also could target voters, experiment on techniques to sway them, and thus affect the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/44 "2013-01-08T17:51:15Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I doubt “all” advertisers do anything, but this is my favorite marketing story of the year: [How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/). I remember that article, and that is an excellent example of the analytical methods the Obama campaign used. I don’t know if anyone does this, but a store with a preferred customer list, or a list of potential customers, could do the same DVR analysis the Obama campaign did and find out where to put ads which would have maximum impact for minimal cost. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/45 "2013-01-08T18:37:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Nate got his data from the polls, true, and did his prediction on electoral votes, not the popular vote counts that showed it to be close. The key point here is that presidents are not elected by popular vote, so it really doesn’t matter how close that is. Obama owned the electoral college throughout most of the race, so why do we persist in calling it close? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/46 "2013-01-08T19:11:37Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > The key point here is that presidents are not elected by popular vote, so it really doesn’t matter how close that is. Yes and no. The margin in the popular vote doesn’t matter, but the result of the popular vote in each state (or district, in Maine and Nebraska) determines how that state’s electoral votes go. And results of the states are interrelated for demographic reasons. So it’s an oversimplification to say it doesn’t matter if the popular vote is close. It’s a little odd to me that this tangent pops up in almost every thread about the election; I think people want to rewrite the history so it looks like Obama never broke a sweat and everybody knew all along that he was going to win. Before the election the state polls were consistent in showing a narrow but clear lead for Obama and that that lead should translate into an electoral college win, and that’s how it worked out. Romney’s campaign was convinced all the polls were wrong (nope) and that things were bound to break their way (nope). The margin in the electoral college always distorts things. Obama won 51 percent of the popular vote, which was a bit more than most people expected, and 62 percent of the electoral vote, which was basically what the pollwatchers expected. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/47 "2013-01-08T19:23:33Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I know what the thread is about. > > The typical way to win an election is to win the independents. Says who? People pay lip service to that but I’ve read articles here and there that state its also equally important, if not moreso, to motivate your own base to come out. One reason Republicans lost is that they didn’t expect the Democratic enthusiasm to match 2008. It was obvious, that was the first time a black guy was on the ticket, he had a chance of winning, and the country was absolutely not going to elect a Republican after 8 disastrous years of Bush. But the GOP were wrong this time, as many pollsters will tell you that Democratic turnout in some areas exceeded 2008, and with the increase in minority voters, the Democrats were motivated to beat Romney. Didn’t Obama do worse with independents than Romney? That’s all you need to know about the importance of independents ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/48 "2013-01-08T21:56:47Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > The key point here is that presidents are not elected by popular vote, so it really doesn’t matter how close that is. Obama owned the electoral college throughout most of the race, so why do we persist in calling it close? Because if it looks close, more people will pay attention to it, and thus more people will watch TV news, go to news sites, or buy the paper. Duh. The politicians want to call it close so that the one ahead can keep the energy and the money up, and the one behind can keep the donations rolling in and stop people from defecting. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/49 "2013-01-08T23:15:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What I’m curious about, and which I guess we’ll find out when the books come out, is whether the Romney camp really believed that the polls showed them ahead or if that was just putting a good face on an increasingly bad situation. I got the impression it was a legit surprise to them and by them I mean Romney and his family as well as Ryan and his family. Supposedly that is why they went to PA a few days before the election, their weighted polls (which supposedly factored in what they perceived to be enthusiasm gaps and lower minority/young turnout than in 2008, probably other things too) showed them neck and neck in PA (Obama won by 5.4%). Plus Romney didn’t write a concession speech because he didn’t think he would lose. If the GOP thought they were neck and neck in PA (which they lost by 5.4%) they could’ve easily assumed that meant they would win OH, FL & VA which were won by Obama about 1-2%. Maybe their internal pollings showed Romney ahead by 2-3% in those states. I am interesting in reading it too and seeing how it happened. These were supposed to be the organizational and business professional republicans, not the kool aid drinking echo chamber republicans. Yet they acted like the latter, I don’t know how that happened. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/50 "2013-01-09T01:44:10Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The typical way to win an election is to win the independents. This is a classic example of someone clinging to conventional wisdom even when it clearly conflicts with observed reality. In this case, the problem arises from the non-fixed definition of “independent”. The current crop of “independents” includes a large infusion of people who are more accurately described as “Republicans who would rather be seen at a Nazi pedophile kitten barbeque than declare that party affiliation”. Ergo, reaching out to “independents” is less useful\* now than it was twenty years ago, since “independents” are less likely to be actual persuadable voters. \*Less useful for both sides, but more so for the Democrats (who simply aren’t going to get those votes) than for Republicans (who might pick up votes from people who otherwise would stay home or vote Libertarian or something). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/51 "2013-01-09T03:25:56Z")
In a spasm of morbid curiosity, I googled “Nazi pedophile kitten barbeque”. I am pleased to report that he made it up. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/52 "2013-01-09T04:04:27Z")
They used to have that BBQ every June up in Illinois but they stopped after this one year when a couple of guys drove their two-tone '70s sedan right thru the middle of everything. Miraculously, no kittens (Nazi, pedophile or otherwise) were harmed. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/53 "2013-01-09T21:50:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > This is a classic example of someone clinging to conventional wisdom even when it clearly conflicts with observed reality. > > In this case, the problem arises from the non-fixed definition of “independent”. The current crop of “independents” includes a large infusion of people who are more accurately described as “Republicans who would rather be seen at a Nazi pedophile kitten barbeque than declare that party affiliation”. Ergo, reaching out to “independents” is less useful\* now than it was twenty years ago, since “independents” are less likely to be actual persuadable voters. > > \*Less useful for both sides, but more so for the Democrats (who simply aren’t going to get those votes) than for Republicans (who might pick up votes from people who otherwise would stay home or vote Libertarian or something). I’m a fairly reliable Democratic voter of the same ilk. Although there are probably more of us “darn it, I’m not going to pledge loyalty to a party” individualists “independents” on the right. It sort of fits the rugged individualist paradigm. However, data mining shouldn’t make it too hard to figure out how I vote, if you go beyond “white, middle aged, suburban, high income” and into religion, occupation, spending patterns, known associations. Even my car (Prius) is likely to tag me as a probable Obama voter. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/54 "2013-01-09T21:54:34Z")
I saw a Prius the other day with a Jesus Fish on it. I decided it must have been a Liberal being ironic. The only other possibility is a Conservative with a _really_ long commute. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/55 "2013-01-09T22:38:21Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I saw a Prius the other day with a Jesus Fish on it. > > I decided it must have been a Liberal being ironic. > > The only other possibility is a Conservative with a _really_ long commute. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/56 "2013-01-09T23:01:06Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I saw a Prius the other day with a Jesus Fish on it. > > I decided it must have been a Liberal being ironic. > > The only other possibility is a Conservative with a _really_ long commute. Well, to be fair, I also subscribe to Forbes, Fortune and The Economist. We don’t all fit in tidy little boxes - which is why you get “there is an 87% she’s pregnant” and there is still a 13% that she has a vitamin deficiency, doesn’t like strong smells, and needs a blue rug. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/57 "2013-01-10T00:21:25Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > The Democrats had 30 years of economic data to show that trickle-down economics does not work in today’s economy. The data showed that most of the prosperity trickled up. That sounds dangerously Viennese. Instead of increases government spending, shouldn’t the Dems be the party for low spending and low taxes? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/58 "2013-01-10T02:31:41Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > That sounds dangerously Viennese. Instead of increases government spending, shouldn’t the Dems be the party for low spending and low taxes? I guess you win the thread, because I didn’t understand one word of this. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/59 "2013-01-10T14:19:38Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Instead of increases government spending, shouldn’t the Dems be the party for low spending and low taxes? There’s an obscure old saying: ‘It takes money to make money.’ Government spending is an investment. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241/60 "2013-01-10T19:15:51Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I saw a Prius the other day with a Jesus Fish on it. > > I decided it must have been a Liberal being ironic. > > The only other possibility is a Conservative with a _really_ long commute. In 2008 some one wrote to Mr. Roadshow, the Bay Area traffic guy, that he put a McCain sticker on his Prius so that he could identify it in the parking lot - since all the rest had Obama stickers. So that might be the explanation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-election-and-data/646241.md?page=4)