Clinton's data-driven "ground game" sucked in exactly the same way "targeted ads" suck, for the same reason


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/10/clintons-data-driven-groun.html


#2

Assuming this chart is correct, there is your answer. She wasn’t popular within her own party or independents and they stayed home.

Lowest voter turn out since 2004, they said. Apathy is a bitch.


#3

Yeah, “Data Driven” my ass.


#4

Here’s another theory:
People don’t like war. Hillary is allied with the globalist agenda that is waging war in Syria, Yemen, and ultimately against Russia.


#5

Um. Ok. Not sure if Trump is more Hawkish or not, but the fact is a lot of people didn’t vote. Period. That is the apathy. They could have voted Trump or 3rd party even, but they chose to do nothing.

In the immortal words of Rush - If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice


#6

I go to Amazon and add something to my wish list, then I see ads for it. I’ve basically said yes I want to buy this, but let me think about it. I don’t need an ad to sell me. As far as politics go those who do vote seem to vote just on a hunch. I have a hunch that Clinton was less hateful than Trump. ps I voted Stein, just because I guessed Clinton would lose Texas so I voted my belief.


#7

#TIL the word “Slatepitched”; thank you all.

(In one of California’s nine ‘Bay Area’ counties, for context:) I could not find anyone in my physically immediate circles who wasn’t going to actually go and vote for Clinton.

I could not get anything but a laugh out of anyone I told, early on, that I was tempted to vote for (as I shall call him) Our Leader, because I wanted to immanentise the Eschaton or bring on the Apocalypse (Zombies Optional). “Do you not realise”, I’d say, “that the country is full of people who will vote for him?” No-one panicked at the thought or even took it seriously. Now I’m one of the few not surprised or even deeply shocked. I’m just feeling oppressed and discontented, and ‘not looking upset’ enough to please some people. So it goes.

  • Never trust polls, folks. Data can be doo-doo.

We were in a bubble.

Clinton had one job to do for me: to let me and others vote her into office despite some of us having to hold our noses to do so, so that we could get Our Leader back into his proper role (something outside of global politics).

  • She failed. I was looking forward, you must understand, to seeing her impeached and convicted of something; but after we’d made the world safe from the Trump Rike [1].

  • We failed, at being a majority outside of our Great Golden State Bubble. Short of having established out-of-state residence in time to vote in (i.e. Utah, Arizona) other states, we did nothing wrong. But collectively, our thoughts were naïve.


  1. “Rike” is how I’m writing “Reich” so that everyone can pronounce it without anxiety. Rhymes with ‘like’ and ‘bike’; who doesn’t love those things?

#8

Because Trump didn’t touch targeted ads at all…

Trump campaign using targeted Facebook posts to discourage black Americans from voting

And I’ve likewise heard (but can not source) that similar pro-Trump ads were targeted towards groups sympathetic to his message.


#9

You’ve got it right; Its not about war or anything more complicated than an emotional reaction… Hillary just didn’t ‘feel’ right for the left… The GOP are super good about turning out to pull their lever no matter the candidate, but the dems aren’t practical enough to just get to the polls without the promise of a fucking ice cream sundae.


#10

Wow. That chart is mind-blowing. The republican vote has barely changed in eight years — this election was entirely the result of that low blue column.


#NeedsMoreLikes (formerly known as "All the Likes")
#11

And another, fuck the DNC for ignoring everybody and pushing Bernie out of the way. I didn’t vote for Trump, but I sure as hell didn’t vote for Hillary either.


#12

Apathy certainly played a big part in the lower Dem turnout. We don’t know the actual numerical impact of this, though:


#13

Also: Disgust
(at having to choose between two deeply unpopular candidates)


#14

The actual blog post goes on to pan the polls and the poll aggregators. It’s a bit bemusing. 4 years ago everyone hailed Nate Silver as a genius because their models “called” all 50 states (where in fact they gave the highest probability of winning to the actual winner in all 50 states, but that is another story). Trump wins this year and 538 gets pissed on (even though they actually gave Trump the best chance of winning of any poll aggregator out there).

Funny thing is that the polls missed by about as much this year as they did in 2012. And it is completely weird that people think the polls somehow “failed them”.


#15

Wikipedia has the turnout UP from 2012 right now. Not sure why that is missing from your image. Not all of the votes are counted yet either.


#16

Or is it that people on the Left are less likely to cromise their own principles in pređe to maintain the party discipline.

Also Hillary can be considered Left only by US standards. In real world terms she is somewhere to the right of Mrs. Mey and Mrs. Merkle


#17

Did the number change? 1) I didn’t make this, 2) wiki is not infallible, but I did see several new agencies saying the turn out was low, but this was the best graphic I found.


#18

I felt that the bulk of Trump’s social presence was the alt-right bogus scandal generator / disinformation campaign. They’ve been consistent on the “evil Clintons” message well before the Trump con game started. Lots of people seem to be swayed by the multiple publication bias that happens when you do internet “research”. (Paraphrasing a friend of my old man: There are so many reports of how Obama is a bad guy that some of it must be true.)

The way out, I think, is to make critical thinking skills a requirement of our public education system.


#19

You may be right, but it is a poor tactical decision. By seeking political purity, the rights of women, gays and minorities are in real danger. Its not an all-or-nothing game; sometimes a bad choice is better than a worse one. The ‘principled’ left should support the democrats on the national level if only to control the supreme court and prevent the dismantling of the meager welfare state as it exists today. They should field aspirational candidates on the local and State level (where they control almost nothing at this point). Build it from the ground up– not try and win it all from the top down.


#20

When I checked, yes

No, wiki is not infallible, but the source publishes its data and sources so it can be investigated. They calculate turnout on the basis of the percentage of voting eligible population that votes. Wasn’t trying to imply anything nefarious on your part, just noticed that there was a turnout arrow in the first two panels but not the last.

Also, should say up slightly (0.7%). Won’t know until all votes are counted though.