Kozmik, what number were you?
Probably 1.
So, they used math and stuff? Chilling.
The Republicans tried to use math, but none of them knew how.
I was going to say “I am not a number, I am a free man!” but that’s how the article in the OP begins. It’s like they know everything about me!
Obama’s camp had you at a strong 100.
Romney’s camp put you at about 47 or below.
So they used numerology instead.
“I was told there’d be no math.”
This was a brilliant strategy by the Obama campaign.
On a macro level, each state was probably assigned a number as well. States with a higher number like Texas would not be as targeted as heavily as states with a lower number like Ohio.
That seems very sensible, from the Obama campaign’s perspective. I’m not clear on what’s objectionable about it, other than that the Obama campaign was doing it.
This is news to you? Of course states that are solidly one way or another will not be targeted because the return on investment is low. States within a few percentage points got all the campaingning.
I hate to break this to you but campaigns have been doing this for a while. For mine I was taught a formula based on these factors:
- Number of elections voted in. i.e. Did a vote vote is ALL elections and primaries? Just presidential years? What?
- What primaries did they vote in? Republican, Democratic, other? Assign likelihood of voter ‘lean’ based on primaries voted in, contributions records, volunteerism, and so forth.
Using that information you can quantify the amount of effort required to get a voter, who may or may not vote, out to the polls to vote for your guy.
I did it. My republican candidate friends did it. We BOTH got it in candidate school. I got it in 2010 when I ran and one of my better R pals got it in 2004 when he first ran.
That Romney didn’t do it WELL speaks ill of his campaign staff. It doesn’t speak as if the Obama campaign did something breakthrough.
If someone at the NYT is writing as if this was a great idea they merely display their own ignorance of modern campaigning and should not be writing on the subject.
I know the OP used the word beware, but I’m not sure he is really objecting to this. Campaigns have been collecting data on potential voters for a long time just like companies and other organizations have to guide their decision making. Obama’s campaigns were good at it, which is part of the reason he won.
The opposite. An Op-Ed at the NYT is writing as if this is a terrible idea and a threat to democracy. Although I would agree that they are displaying their ignorance (math! it’s a threat!) and should not be writing on the subject.
Fucking statistics, how does it work?
“Number 2, Sir!”
Who am I? I am 24601!
ELEVEN!!!
goddamn board won’t post all caps