Beware the smart campaign
Mr. Messina is understandably proud of his team, which included an unprecedented number of data analysts and social scientists. As a social scientist and a former computer programmer, I enjoy the recognition my kind are getting. But I am nervous about what these powerful tools may mean for the health of our democracy, especially since we know so little about it all…
What I really worry about, though, is that these new methods are more effective in manipulating people. Social scientists increasingly understand that much of our decision making is irrational and emotional. For example, the Obama campaign used pictures of the president’s family at every opportunity. This was no accident. The campaign field-tested this as early as 2007 through a rigorous randomized experiment, the kind used in clinical trials for medical drugs, and settled on the winning combination of image, message and button placement. I agree that his family is wonderful and his daughters are cute. But an increasing role of “likability” factors, which we now understand better how to manipulate, is not good for democracy…
I’m not claiming that the Obama campaign used these methods to mislead. However, the fact that the winning campaign’s “chief data scientist” was previously employed to “maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions” does not thrill me. You should be worried even if your candidate is — for the moment — better at these methods. Democracy should not just be about how to persuade people to vote for one candidate over another by any means necessary.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I haven’t seen one yet (and I’m over 55); if I ever do, I’ll beware.
RoadRunner on November 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM
A) There’s nothing Obama in this arcane field did that the Republicans couldn’t have done/can’t do.
B) There isn’t any subliminal hypnotism that can overcome real economic pain clearly and inextricably tied to left wing policy. It’s time the public got a refresher and stopped being protected from itself.
HitNRun on November 18, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Somebody’s scared to death that the low-information voter strategy will be turned against them.
Caiwyn on November 18, 2012 at 9:59 AM
100% true.
Mr. D on November 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM
You’d think from this that Obama’s geniuses had succeeded in turning out gazillions of, er, grown-up white people, as opposed to just more of the usual suspects. In fact the white grown-ups stayed home. That says more about the personal failures of Republican hopefuls than it does about Team Obama’s superior technical expertise. Could it be that the increasing derogation of old-fashioned press-the-flesh politicking (which in turn might have forced Republican candidates to articulate their views more persuasively and prospective voters to pay closer attention) was the bigger problem?
Seth Halpern on November 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM
I see no evidence of this. /
Kataklysmic on November 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM
I don’t typically go trick or treating on Halloweeen. Children do. What would get me out on Halloween? A computer-driven ad reminding me how important it was to trick-or-treat? Doubt it. A Halloween dance with other people who care about such things? Why, yes, a dance might just do it.
Seth Halpern on November 18, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Where’s the computer program that shows how we spend and outsmart ourselves into oblivion?
moonsbreath on November 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM
I’d beware the static, stupid campaign instead. One that couldn’t beat the worst President since Carter, in economic times that haven’t been this bad since the Great Depression.
Thomas More on November 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM
I agree.
The problem is Democrats and their media allies want to bully Republicans into talking to the Democrat base instead of talking to the traditional Republican base.
Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Supermarket sales. Buy now.
I felt like it was more like voting by cellphone for the American Idol, than a somber choice.
Fleuries on November 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM
SOON.
Punchenko on November 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Well, there’s no democracy in Chicago, then. “By any means necessary” is the SOP for the Daley Machine, of which Obama is a creation.
Wethal on November 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM
I’m not convinced that the missing Republican voters were notably low-information voters such that techniques designed for the latter would work on them. I suspect they were high skepticism voters who were probably not terribly motivated by glib, long-distance Republican campaign media targeting, and would probably respond as I generally do to “personalized” emails, ie by not bothering to read them, and pressing “delete” instead.
I’m not claiming that such voters are anxious to be physically besieged in their homes by needy politicians, but there is something to be said for the politics of human contact.
Seth Halpern on November 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM
They also had five years to perfect this against Romney in particular. NO FRONT RUNNER UNTIL 2015, y’all.
Sekhmet on November 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Didn’t Obama get fewer votes this time than last? So all those social scientists etc. were less effective in raw numbers than whatever the campaign did last time. All they beat was the dynamic of an incumbent up for a second term. Next time there will be an open field on both sides with one party having been in control for 8 years. That will have more effect on the outcome of the race than any social science based microtargeting.
txmomof6 on November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM
We need our own Mad Men. And we need them now.
If Priebus embraces this, then he can get another term.
faraway on November 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM
This goes back to the book The Hidden Persuaders from the late 50′s/early 60′s.
Bob Newhart had a great piece about how advertisers would have created an Abraham Lincoln if he didn’t already exist.
The Dems seem to have done exactly this – just like the music industry does market research to find what kind of performer the buyers want, and then go and find someone who exactly fits the bill, thus maximizing sales. [e.g., the survey says buyers want a young blond girl on a guitar - so they go and pick Taylor Swift out of the crowd of 1000s of music-star-wanna-be's].
Obama fits the demographic the Dems want to attract.
sultanp on November 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM