Posted on 02/12/2013 11:53:39 AM PST by xzins
Last week, Neil Stevens raised the alarm about Google selling out conservatives on policy issues. He’s right, but a number of conservatives and Republicans think there is an even bigger problem for GOP.
Remember that enormous, sophisticated data operation the Obama campaign had? The one that gave them massive daily data on public opinion trends in almost every segment of potential voters.
It’s almost as if Democrats had access to some sort of huge database of real time information about what the public was reading or writing online. The kind of breathtakingly large, real-time data that could be used for real-time trend analysis, predictive modeling and even behavioral manipulation.
On a completely unrelated note, former RNC eCampaign Director Michael Turk wrote Monday that “the frightening advantage the left has is in a less touted entity known as the Analyst Institute (AI) and a consortium of behavioral scientists” who are “concerned not only with your characteristics and voting behavior, but how they can manipulate that behavior.”
Now, combine Obama’s political campaign with Google’s near-comprehensive real-time data and the left’s behavioral analysis. What do you get? Beat.
This goes beyond just campaigns. Google likes to brag that they can detect flu outbreaks two weeks before the CDC based on search volume. Eric Schmidt once bragged that the company could predict stock market movements.
Imagine how much more could be learned if Google’s computer algorithms combined not only search data but also all of the data they get by reading everything written in or sent to Gmail and whatever you store on Google docs and Google Drive. Then imagine what Democratic voter data groups like Catalist (which launched as a for-profit operation, allowing it much more latitude in working with outside groups….or companies) could do with that data.
With a few tweaks to their algorithms Google could easily have near perfect insights into the voting behaviors and patterns of the U.S. population at large down to specific precincts, neighborhoods or even households.
The threat isn’t just that Google openly supports left wing politicians and policies. That’s obvious, and that relationship goes both ways. Google+ hosted Joe Biden for a “fireside chat” about gun control and Obama is doing a Google+ “hangout” immediately following his State of the Union speech tonight.
The real threat is that Google, or perhaps just a few people within the leadership of Google, may be quietly operating as a private intelligence agency for the left.
And every time you use Google or Gmail you could be contributing just a little bit more of your behavioral data to the left.
FIFY
This is why I don’t believe someone started FB in a dorm room or someone started Google in a garage. They’re just the front. That’s why the computer guys have dinner at the white house a lot. How many people would join a social website if they knew it was the government collecting information on them? There would be a lot less than there are now.
It would seem to me to work both ways. If suddenly Google started seeing lots of email passing through about “gun rights” and “anti immigration reform” then the gathered data could be skewed in that direction.
If millions of gun owners start searching for “ruger mini-14”, or 5.56 rifles that would certainly trigger some data mines.
Data mining in and of itself assumes that the data they are mining is clear and random. Just like we Freep polls people should be able to freep the mine.
Just takes a large number of people who are dedicated to completing the task for 5 minutes a day.
Brin, Page, and Schmidt are as tight with Baraq as Reggie Love.
Ain’t gonna be no Google breakup when he’s in charge.
I think this is all “pollyanna”. They crawl all websites and documents to obtain the raw data for THEIR OWN USE. What YOU see is highly likely skewed to what THEY WANT you to see. You are not allowed unfettered access to their raw datasets. They mine their data and make the results available to you, in the way THEY want.
Moreover, those who control all the information, eventually win! We are seeing that now with the MSM. As time passes, and the LIV’s only believe the Internet, it is over. We are speeding down that path now. It cannot be stopped when LIV’s are allowed to vote.
Let’s put this in its proper perspective.
A lot of it is bogus agit/prop-—a sweet-smelling front for Dem’s dirty backdoor campaigns. They are stealing billions to pour into campaigns (gotta get the House in Dem hands)-—and they have a voter fraud apparatus that is second to none.
This is also driven by the latino Fifth Column-—anxious to appeal to vote-crazed pols so’s they can get their greedy hands on foreign aid, and other state/federal freebies.
ping
LET US ALL BOYCOTT GOOGLE!
Use https://www.ixquick.com, the world’s most private search engine.
You will like it, and the LIEberals will not!
As Demonratic National Chairman, Bailey created a separate organization known as Group Research, Inc., to compile dossiers on Republicans and particularly on conservatives. By the early 1980s. Demoncrat Congresscritters were equipping their offices with mainframe computers and compiling electronic records on constituents' issue preferences, letters to the editor, public hearing remarks, political contributions and a host of other data.
Now they are said to be mining personal computer and internet data to better refine and individualize their approach to voters. If you are verified as a pro-lifer, you won't get their babykillers' rights agitprop. If you are a small business owner, you may get pitched in favor of abortion but not in favor of unions. Etc., etc., etc. Meanwhile, the GOP, thanks to the rank stupidity of the ohhhh soooooo moderate and polite GOP-E, has become the technologically obsolete party and the punching bag of American politics.
Dems were/are just as paranoid about "Fox News" and Myspace (which is no longer owned by News Corp.) and for similar reasons.
Google search cookies can (and should) be disabled or deleted/cleaned frequently on regular basis which greatly reduces its tracking capability. General IP "tracking" is not precise, and doesn't really lend itself to the kind of analysis author is worried about. It can also be defeated if one is sufficiently paranoid, but there is hardly and rarely a need for it.
Most people using Gmail use handles instead of real names, and most of that mail is not sensitive or useful for precision voting pattern analysis or "aftermarket" ads.
Google has compiled a lot of "Big Data" type of information that it can mine, so has Facebook (and qualitatively it's much better because it's much more "personal" due to the its nature as "social" media... same is true about Google+ but participation in both is purely voluntary and users should understand that their private data on social media will be monetized, i.e., sold to people/orgs who maybe interested in certain preferences, habits, "traits" or "trends" which includes political analysis), but they don't have "enough" data to be any more usable for electoral victories than what has been collected over the years and is already available to political information analysts (like Barone, Rove, Plouffe, Axelrod et al) and sometimes they are just wrong due to GIGO (think ill-fated Romney's Orca or even much better equivalent from Obama machine).
What author proposes is that the predominant issue is the access or lack of it to the "Big Data." The "Big Data" itself was not the problem in this election, the GOP-e technocrat candidate and the consultant-driven campaigns they keep running since 1990s combined with self-imposed technological disadvantages and lack of coherent and consistent message were the problems.
The temporary disadvantage in "Big Data" can be easily fixed, with some money and effort... The disadvantages in GOP "message" and messengers' passion and sincerity is another matter...
From Gingrich: The challenge confronting Republicans - FR / HE, post #2, 2012 December 24
3. We need a clear distinction between coalition-based campaigns and consultant-based campaigns. There are profound differences in systems, styles, structures, and attitude. The last three big Republican Presidential victories (1980, 1984, 1988) were coalition campaigns. The House victories of 1994, 1996, and 2010 were coalition victories. The Republican consultant class, many campaign professionals, and many Republican staff are deeply opposed to the coalition model. ..... < snip > ..... 5. Infotainment is a world Democrats enjoy and use and Republicans either disdain or fear, and as a consequence avoid. The View, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Leno, Letterman, ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, and on and on, represent patterns of communications Republicans often disdain, seldom appear on and as a consequence are simply invisible to their audiences. The same could be said for most ethnic media. ..... < snip > ..... 6. The strategic nurturing over time of micro-issues with micro-organizations and micro-communicating ( a pattern much richer and more powerful than micro-targeting) to create micro-communities that support their team and their candidate has been vastly better done by Democrats. This deserves its own study and a strategic response that will require very different systems and structures. ..... < snip > ..... 7. The 47% comment by Governor Romney reflected a deep belief by many conservatives and Republican consultants, campaign professionals, staffs, and activists. The entire psychology of writing off vast parts of a country or state and focusing narrowly may make some sense for a specific campaign. but it is a formula for permanent minority status when adopted by a party. The GOP should end red-versus-blue and narrowly focused targeting models. ..... < snip > ..... 13. Data science Obama-style has no relationship to the Republican model of Internet politics. The Obama system is helped in data science by its 85 to 90% dominance of Silicon Valley. If you have the founders of Google and Facebook helping you design your system you have an enormous advantage over your competitors. The challenge of social networking, micro-community building and citizen mobilization may be second only to the challenge of including minority Americans in the GOP in determining whether Republicans decline into minority status for the next several decades. ..... < snip > ..... 15. In story telling and narrative development, the mismatch of resources is as great as in Internet capabilities. Hollywood, New York City, academics, the news media and trial lawyers are the dominant story tellers in American life. Every one of them is overwhelmingly (80% plus) Democratic. Republicans have complained about the inarticulateness and communications ineffectiveness of the party for the entire time I have been involved (going back to August 1958). This is the third great strategic challenge along with minorities and the Internet community. ..... < snip > ..... 17. The key to success in politics as in war is the ability to stay on offense. There is a deeply destructive tendency among Republicans to fall into a defensive mode (watch the current "fiscal cliff" process as a depressing example). Learning to stay on offense requires a strategic vision that enables you to constantly orient to the future, an operational system that allows you to be inside your opponent's decision cycle ( see Boyd's work on OODA-loops for an explanation) and the tactical skill to dominate the media, which will normally be opposed to you. Republicans as a group have none of these capabilities. ..... < snip > ..... 2. We need a map of the Democrats' coalition and the scale and intensity of their coalition. Their organized efforts and networks simply dwarf anything Republicans and conservatives have developed. Furthermore, their coalition is a permanent system of activism while the Republican consultant model is campaign focused and therefore both episodic and isolated. An ongoing coalition can mass and focus more energy and resources than isolated short time-horizon campaigns.
Why Bing? Does it provide any privacy features?
Corzine/Obama were well-prepared for Corz's 2009 reelection----they had billions hidden (stim money); they were on their knees in obeisance to the large latino population---obsessively sucking up to nail the vote;
But incumbent Gov Corzine suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a conservative Republican with virtually no war chest in a solid, union-heavy Dem state. Here's the Obama/Dem formula for winning (so they thought):
<><>Obama personally directed the WH take over Corzine’s campaign.
<><>Obama campaigned in NJ three times, Biden was there twice.
<><>Obama put the power of the WH political machine behind Corzine.
<><> Obama TV ads ran relentlessly on costly NY media.
Lo and behold---the NY Times actually reported:
(a) every TV ad Corzine put on the air was being screened by Obama’s WH “geniuses.”
(b) Corzine’s aides gave the WH daily briefings.
(c) Obama’s pollsters took over for Corzine’s polling team, and,
(d) White House operatives were on the ground for internal strategy sessions.
(e) Obama sent NJ $17.2 billion "stimulus" to NJ which promptly disappeared.
(f) secret strategy sessions were held with latinos;
(g) a Peruvian PAC endorsed Corzine;
(h) candidate Corzine bragged he had 20,000 paid (union) operatives on the street getting out the states largely registered Dem voters.
HAPPILY EVER AFTER (/snix) And the kicker was a Repub Lt gov got elected----hated by latinos for coming down hard on illegals when she was a county sheriff.
CONCLUSION Obama's "help" was a millstone around the neck of former Goldman-Sachs exec Jon Corzine---who lost handily. Corzine was once being considered for Obama's US treasury Secy---he is now under investigation in the MF Global missing billions theft---(still free b/c he knows where the stim billions Obama hid in NJ are).
The White House operatives - slim, willowy men with a problem with ladies - also put out ads that targetted Christie’s weight. This, in a state that delights in oodles of pasta and pizza, Viennese tables, and all-you-can-eat family-style Chinese restaurants. When finally perturbed reporters asked Corzine about this obsession, he brilliantly replied: “Well, I’m bald. They can attack me for that.” Christie ignored this political advice and went on to win.
Yup-—elections can turn on little things like that.
Christie’s putdown on the weight issue was great-—told Corzine to “man-up”....stop w/ the corny stuff-—and just say he was “fat.”
Some good points....but remember, you might turn of your cookies, and you might be aware that there is no provacy on a gmail account...
....but do the Daily Show watching sheeple care? The great gelatenous mass in the middle is the target. The people who stick their finger in the wind, or are one issue voters - Google can be very, very helpful with them.
As to some of Newt’s comments - I agree with most. Unfortunately, I don’t think the GOP will every be on the full time ‘offense’ like he wants. The thing we can’t compete with: the democrats don’t care about the outcome. I didn’t watch the SOTU last night, but the highlight reel shows Obama demanding more money for x, y, and z (and x, y, and z are carefully cultivated special interest groups). He’s not so foolish as to believe a) we could afford any of it, or b) he’s really going to get 10% of what he’s demands. Its all politics to him...a very cynical ploy to pit special interest groups against the adults in the room, who have to say ‘no’. The GOP can never match that...because it isn’t that dishonest.
The sheeple who watch Comedy Channel or nightly comedy shows for news, not for laughs are not really the target-rich audience for conservatives.
one issue voters are easy - they are either with you or against you. They actively seek and make sure they know where you stand on this issue from your own words, actions - Google / FB "intelligence" is hardly of help/problem here - that's exactly what Newt described as micro-issues, micro-communities. The worst that can happen is they see a few more unsolicited ads or emails trying to solidify their opinion on this single issue and encourage them to vote (usually redundant exercise in motivation for single-issue voters) or try to turn them on another single-issue - that only works when the voters don't know where the candidates stand on the issues important to them (case in point - Romney was trying to play kinder gentler compassionate Republican who is more competent than "over-his-head" Obama with otherwise no real differentiation on most policy issues).
Single-issuers know how and where to find information on candidates - perfect example of micro-issue, micro-community, micro-targeting - "Google/FB intelligence" doesn't figure into it, candidates already know who they are and should be pro-active and active in GOTV with them.
The great gelatenous mass in the middle is the target. The people who stick their finger in the wind...
Exactly, that's the "conversion target" and they need to see passion, conviction, enthusiasm and active wooing by political/campaign education so they can be enthusiastic about you or your positions and have confidence in your competence and ability to deliver.
That, among other things, is what separates Reagan, Clinton Obama from Carter, Bushes, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney...
*** = Excitement Factor (to vote FOR)
^^ = Near Win / Loss
| Presidential Candidate | VP Candidate |
|---|---|
Republicans |
|
| Gerald Ford | Bob Dole |
| Ronald Reagan *** | George H. W. Bush |
| George H. W. Bush | Dan Quayle (***) |
| Bob Dole | Jack Kemp *** |
| George W. Bush ^^ | Dick Cheney *** |
| John McCain | Sarah Palin *** |
| Mitt Romney | Paul Ryan (***) |
|
Democrats |
|
| Jimmy Carter | Walter Mondale |
| Walter Mondale | Geraldine Ferraro *** |
| Michael Dukakis | Lloyd Bentsen |
| Bill Clinton *** | Al Gore |
| Al Gore ^^ | Joe Lieberman |
| John Kerry ^^ | John Edwards (***?) |
| Barack Obama *** | Joe Biden |
The table shows that the Excitement Factor (and/or Charisma Factor) can't be "borrowed" from the VP candidate - that's why both Clinton and Obama forgone the usual "state balancing" in the choice of their VP.
... the highlight reel shows Obama demanding more money for x, y, and z (and x, y, and z are carefully cultivated special interest groups). He's not so foolish as to believe a) we could afford any of it, or b) he's really going to get 10% of what he's demands.
Why shouldn't he? That's politics - bargaining, negotiating, trying to sway the opinion of sheeple [third party] to bring pressure on the second party in negotiations. That's also part of the "permanent campaign" - the concept most Republicans are unfamiliar with in practice because they think that elections stop after they win (or lose), and start again a few months before next election. That's not how you get things done in politics (unless you have a supermajority and don't plan on keeping it).
Most Republicans are afraid or [rightly] suspicious of active/activist government, but there are things that government does need to do (including pairing itself down, which is a huge "activist" task that doesn't get done by attrition) and all of it requires "selling" to the finger-in-the-wind people, not sitting on laurels of "mandate" after election and finding out that the other side doesn't agree. Being a Dr No or Mr No will only brand you as "obstructionist" and simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, most Republicans, even when they have some power or leverage, act like a why-is-everybody-always-picking-on-me victim (and therefore are increasingly treated like one) instead of equal-side negotiators.
Reagan understood that - he ran "activist" government and he was selling his programs or "cuts"/reforms ("reform" is a double-edged [s]word, which is why it's so popular with politicians of all stripes) to the people to get what he wanted to get from Congress, fully understanding that he was not going to get 100% of it in one bite. Gingrich did that from Speakership (10 points of Contract With America were voted on, most of them passed into law, as well as some other reforms like welfare which required passing 3 times before veto became untenable, etc. etc.) Pelosi and Reid essentially ran the government from 2007 and controlled the agenda even before they got majorities in the Congress.
Bushes (and Republican candidates) never really explained to people what they wanted government to do (and not to do), just what they [personally] wanted to be (kinder, gentler, compassionate conservative etc., i.e., playing defense) and we know the mess that followed.
The "personality transplant" is not something that Google/FB "intelligence" can help deliver, though caricatures can play a role in the "old" and "new" media - but Dukakis, Gore, Kerry suffered almost as much from it as Ford, Bush, Dole (pre-Google/FB), McCain and Romney, mostly just by being "themselves" on the campaign trail.
In other words, author is hitting a panic button about the disadvantages that can be reasonably easy fixed (given the real interest in fixing them) neutralized and even turned into advantage - Internet and cheap digital content creation/authoring tools allow us to break free from the shackles of limited channels and limited content creation (as I like to say, "limited bandwidth" of old network/cable media) even using Google's own YouTube...
Yep. Corzine, Kerry and Romney are prime members of the plenus-ergo-politico (rich-turned-politician) club.
I heard a Jay Leno joke recently (paraphrasing) about Al Gore becoming richer than Romney, after the sale of [his] CurrentTV network to al-Jazeera, both proving that no matter how much money one has it's not enough to buy a personality.
Running a Corzine or a Kerry with an (R) after his name (Romney)? No wonder most people wouldn't know the difference in the last campaign.
The Democrats use whatever information they can get their hands on. Do a BING (Because It’s Not Google) search on vote builder. It is a powerful database they use to keep in touch with their voters. They have been adding and tweaking it for years. All the Democrats use it and increase their knowledge of their base. It tells them each time you have been contacted, what the response was when and where you voted, your name age DOB primary language spoken, and race.
To give you an idea how good it is I got an e-mail Monday from Obama asking me to join a SOTU speech in my area and how to contact them to attend. Has anyone ever gotten something like that from the republicans?
They may not win every time but it sure gives them an advantage.
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.