Posted on 01/31/2013 3:19:31 PM PST by JerseyanExile
techno politics bump for later...
Who cut his hair?
Would be interesting to see the telco breakdown. Seeing as the BS unlocekd phone law that just recently passed. Telco’s in bed with GOP, pure tech in bed with democrats. Seems to make sense.
A lot of FReepers trash progressives as stupid, but the fact is they seized control of new media, just like they took over the education system 2 generations ago.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Send FReepmail if you want on/off SVP list | |
The List of Ping Lists |
Dude - you don’t need the Birth Control glasses. Trust me.
The haircut could be worse, the problem is...Everything else.
Generaly stupidity and specific skill sets are not mutually exclusive. Many people with enormous specific talents are dumb as rocks.
If Donald Trump had a son......
...?? >>> bump <<<<
Don't forget the military. They've taken that over just within the last decade. Most of us had no idea until the Fort Hood shooting. But it's all coming out every day now.
Libs are unintelligent in the sense that most of them can't see what their policies will lead to. But, they ain't stupid, either. There's a middle place where lots of damage can be done.
This is a fascinating article. I highly recommend going back to the original link and reading the whole thing. We've got a lot to learn and I fear we won't.
But when 3.3 per cent less democrats voted for BO in 2012 than in 2008 I tend to think the article is less chilling analysis and more steaming overhype designed to encourage the RINO culture.
Also, the high-tech world is a diverse and tolerant culture. Diversity and tolerance are not what we Republicans are known for. If we want to reach out to the technology innovators, we are going to have to change our image and also address some of their policy concerns. (More below on that.)
In summary they matched up phone survey responses with the effect their ads and those of their fellow travelers had on the voters they wanted to convince, and then they fed whatever "message" was needed to get the voter to go their way. Then they followed up to make sure the voter voted for Obama. There is a reason they pushed for early voting - it is what really enables their method.
Interestingly, and not described in the article, is how by micro-targeting their message they, and their PAC partners, could avoid broad use of messages that would have been flagged as false or inflammatory by the media had they been widely distributed.
How’d they turn out 4 million fewer voters for Obama than he’d had in ‘08? How did ‘12 become a 55% turnout election while ‘08 was 59%?
They were able to produce a “real” victory in a virtual world, perhaps. Too bad it won’t FEED them...
Mr. Trump does have a son, who is now running the Trump Winery in Virginia.
For example, without the pro-Obama votes from a few urban areas in Ohio, mostly in Cleveland, with high turnouts Romney would have won Ohio.
Not only did they convince low information voters to support them, often with misleading messages, but they cleverly concentrated their effort on specific races, not overall vote totals. They also took advantage of "winner take all" states that assign electoral college votes by who won the state instead of who won each congressional district.
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.