Posted on 05/14/2013 2:13:09 PM PDT by neverdem
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH WRINGING OF HANDS over how the Obama campaign’s use of big data and technology was (and is still) so much more advanced than anything we have on the right. Much of this concern is grounded in reality. The left has a big advantage here, and it’s one post-election problem that the GOP must tackle.
The Obama campaign used a data analytics program that had been perfected over six years, and which broke the electorate down into very small and targeted subsets of demographics (think single Hispanic women living in Colorado). This approach was unprecedented in presidential politics: a national campaign waged as a very personal appeal to small groups with specific messages tested for each demographic.
But even taking that into account, the biggest gap we have with regard to databases and technology is not on the technical side. The real issue is whether the right will accept the idea that data and technology should be so integrated into our decision making, get-out-the-vote operations, and messaging efforts, that it becomes a part of our DNA.
We should acknowledge the fact that despite the chest-thumping (which in some ways is justified) by Obama and his campaign, the election was cumulatively decided by 482,000 votes, when you add up the president’s margin of victory in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa. Had those states and their electoral votes gone to Mitt Romney, he would be in the White House.
Apart from the relatively close nature of the race, one of the great advantages that Obama’s team had was time. They spent six years perfecting their data analytics. Then 18 months before the 2012 election, they began investing heavily in technology. By the time all was said and done, Obama had more than 300 engineers and digital staff on his team...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The election was purchased with entitlements in my view.
As long as the regime can create unlimited Baraqqi/Bernanke/Lew minibucks, I see no reason for that to change.
Recall that David Axelrod in early 2009 insisted that the White House run the 2010 census, and post-election reports that that data was tapped for 2012 get-out-the-vote efforts targeting people who had relocated into battleground states.
The post-2012 motto is now becoming: “It’s the data, stupid”
It’s about the technology of adjusting the vote totals on the machines without being caught in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
How long does it take to figure that out?
If this last election is the best the Democrats can do with the money and technology advantages that they had then they are in more trouble than they realize.
Gosh maybe it was Romney who depressed turnout. ;)
“The Obama campaign used a data analytics program that had been perfected over six years...”
It did no such thing. The obuma fascist team controlled enough polling districts to steal the damn election.
What about the testicle gap?
“We should acknowledge the fact that despite the chest-thumping (which in some ways is justified) by Obama and his campaign, the election was cumulatively decided by 482,000 votes, when you add up the president’s margin of victory in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa. Had those states and their electoral votes gone to Mitt Romney, he would be in the White House.”
That’s a 241,000 vote swing, or about 60K votes per state. There are 1778 precincts in Iowa, so we’re talking about swinging 30 votes average a precinct. Keep in mind most precincts average around 4-500 votes each, so we’re talking a 5-7% flip.
And Iowa is a relatively small state. Pro rated I’d expect it to be more like a 15 or 20 vote flip per precinct, or less. That ain’t squat, and that shows you how razor thin Obama’s ‘dominating victory’ really was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.