For the life of me, I still don’t understand how this is supposed to be insulting to Obama.
Think like Trump. In other words, think like a 10 year old.
Right. Like rubbing your clothed butt on a fellow 10 year old’s baseball cap when they aren’t looking.
You two are being far too generous with your age equivalents.
What it seems to me is that it exposes his utter hatred and contempt for Obama, in his mind a bed that he slept on becomes forever contaminated and fit for use as toilet. This is the depth of his hatred, and it is certainly race-based. This is not the mindset of a healthy man, he is sick and should be kept away from guns and sharp objects, not to mention the nuclear football.
As for advertising dollars go, I can attest that social media is the way to go.
I’ve done mailers, I’ve done radio ads, I’ve done flyers, I’ve advertised in magazines, about the only think I haven’t done is a TV ad.
Ads on facebook and google give me at least a 5x return over any of those traditional methods, probably closer to 10.
And that is with just the tools that google adwords (express) and facebook give you as defaults. With specific targeted demographic information, the multiplier would only get better.
I can’t even imagine that anyone who believes “You people all look alike, anyway” would confuse Rodman and Obama. Drag queens can’t really pull off a tan suit, at least that I’ve seen.
10x of $1m is $10m. The Trump campaign spent $250m and (one presumes) a lot of it went into Facebook and Google, so they were getting the same 10x multiplier. So if the argument is that somehow Russia’s $1m advertising investment was more significant than Trump’s $250m investment, that just don’t fly. Even if the Trump campaign didn’t use social media at all, $250m is still more than $10m by 25 times.
I’m pretty sure that Russia was not the only person in the game advertising on social media.
Facebook isn’t a news organization. They allow people to find news, but it’s still the media that creates it.
People who are pushing the Russia (boo!) angle apparently view Russian marketing abilities as supernatural. $100K (ok, at most $1M) ad buys managing to sway a $1.8B campaign. That’s amazingly efficient. US political consultants really need to learn their lessons, shouldn’t they?
Remember, the Russians had a lot of help from the Trump campaign about who to target with those ads.
But did they know they were helping the Russians? A pro-Trump PAC looking for such demographic info going to get carefully vetted and scrutinized? Why would they? Even if they did know, how hard would it be to set it up with oodles of plausible deniability?
First of all, you have no idea that’s true other than your fantasies, but let’s say it is.
So - Trump campaign tells Russians how to target their $1M and it has a huge effect, right? But the same Trump campaign has $hundreds of millions on hand, and did not use their super-targeting to spend that enormous sum just as efficiently?
One part in twenty-five is 4%. In many races a 4% boost in advertising doesn’t mean much, but in an extremely close race a 4% boost can change the outcome. However, I don’t want to imply any exactness to that 4% number up there.
The point is, it was an extremely close race. Trump needed a lot of things that could have gone either way (e.g. midwest turnout) to go his way, and most or all of them did. Anything that contributed to that happening (e.g. Russian interference in the campaign) didn’t need to have huge effect to tip the scales one way or the other.
Cite?
As far as I’m aware, this is only speculated so far.
You might have a point if a single $1million ad buy was all they did.
They also posted fake stories, sometimes using ad money to promote them, but often just letting them go viral on their own.
They paid people to go to social media sites and start and control narratives from there.
They were not supernatural at all. We just had a population that was primed for being manipulated by negative and deceptive advertising, along with creating a leverage system that we didn’t really understand.
As I said to a friend the other day, “We spent billions of dollars building and running the VOA stations throughout the cold war to put propaganda into the Soviet’s backyard. Then we spent billions of dollars building the internet, letting them return the favor for free.”
Yeah, I mean, Watergate was no big deal because it cost even less.
I’d love to see the rundown within this thread of goal posts moving from there was absolutely no interaction between Trump and Russia ever in history into there was a little collusion, but it was efficiently priced, so it doesn’t count.
There are no goal posts moving, it was a theoretical for the sake of the argument, there is absolutely no evidence of any collusion, it is all in the realm of fantasy.
But it is fun to see liberals claim that Russians are evil marketing geniuses, supported by Trump campaign’s amazing (and genius, too) targeting machine, running circles around hapless Democrats who spent three times the money Trump did (and more than a thousand times the money Russians supposedly did). Oh and of course Trump is dumb as a rock, and so are most of the people who work for him. The cognitive dissonance is just hilarious.
Nobody here claimed that the people around Trump are dumb.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly–you’re saying that you believe that most news items on Facebook are created by the mainstream media??