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...