I don't particularly believe those two are mutually exclusive though. In 2016, Trump was a bit of a novelty and comparing to HRC a relatively unknown entity. Nowadays, he has a "body of work" that can be easily used in negative ads.
I would think you could tie in both with Trump. An ad that notes how often Trump lies then showing him saying things like Mexico will pay for the wall, then overlay that with text saying he diverted billions of dollars from military families to pay for the wall, or him saying he won't cut Social Security and Medicare, then overlay that with the hundreds of millions he's tried to cut from those programs in his annual budgets, then end with a scary voice over saying "And now Lying Donald says he wants to <insert something here> and we're supposed to believe him??'
New Nevada poll out has: Sanders 35 Warren 16 Buttigieg 15 Biden 14 Steyer 10 Klobuchar 9 Gabbard 2 https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/sanders-has-strong-lead-in-nevada Unfortunately, this is their first survey of Nevada, so there aren't any trendlines to look at.
I’m behind so Sorry if this has been pointed out...but with private insurance eliminated, eventually the GOP and the Evangealiban will be in charge of our only choice for health insurance. Not sure I’m a big fan of that.
Big question is wtf happened to Warren. Is there any redemption for her? She was the frontrunner in the fall skyrocketing in the polls. She had the media attention the crowds and the poll numbers. Then she was taken down in the fall debate and has never recovered. The rise of Pete Buttigieg in Iowa cannibalized her support amongst educated affluent white voters. What hurt her even more was the resurgence of Sanders. After his Heart attack it looked like he ebbed in support then he got 3 out of the 4 endorsements from the squad and he took control and won the Left lane. Warren only path to the nomination was to win the left lane and consolidate the wine track democratic voters. She failed on both fronts. I see nowhere as a breakout for her. She is DOA. Its sad that Klouchbar has done better than her.
Also were all assuming Sanders wins big in Nevada. If that's the case he ties in Iowa wins NH and NV he has to be the clear frontrunner. Biden last stand is in SC. After that it seems like super Tuesday is a contest between Bloomberg and Sanders and not Biden and Sanders.
He lost in IA, tied in NH, and will likely win NV.. But, yes, Sanders is the front runner. It could be a rather tenuous status if a moderate ever separates themselves from the other moderates. That being said, I’m not sure Bernie goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates and if he doesn’t, I’m not sure he comes out the candidate.
It is interesting putting a bunch of different work/studies together about what is going on with digital, elections, and disinfo campaigns We have @American Brummie 's meta study suggesting that digital advertising does not directly drive voting conversion - I accept that premise as we don't have any better evidence to the contrary Also, when we look at what is actually happening on digital (e.g. 'Digital Guru' Parscale) much of it is to do with fundraising, and we have known since Obama's campaigns that digital advertising is a great way to raise money. i.e you get positive ROI for the money you spend on your email list work, facebook and google advertising. Disinfo continues to grow in importance (IMO). This does not target a voter response, but rather is like content marketing in the brand space. The goal is to cause voters to believe a certain set of 'facts'. Eg smearing Biden, the FBI etc etc And then we have the "shitpost wars" for want of a better term. Bloomberg is essentially giving us a reverse engineering of how 2016 worked, but using paid media rather than earned (because he doesn't have a russian troll bot farm or endless free PR). Early analysis shows Bloomberg using a very similar strategy. Flood the zone with shit, and take advantage of the algo's love of shit. In this very Trumpian view, any and all coverage is great, because you are making the conversation about you. This is why Bloomberg trolls Bernard and Trump for example, and does not care about all the negative return shots. It is interesting whether "minimike' is a bad strategy from Trump, as it in fact amplifies the value of Bloombergs spend - tapping Trump's outrage network. Sanders may be making the same mistake, in effect promoting Bloomberg But what does all this stuff do? Does it get you votes? Does it suck the oxygen out of other campaigns? Fascinating times in the post-democratic landscape
And, I should add, I hope we never get contrary evidence, because it would suggest voters are manipulated by internet ads in a way they never were by TV, radio, or mail ads.
Yes - so its interesting what does this stuff actually do? e.g. i think it is clear that Bloomberg's shitpost campaign boosts awareness, name recognition, suppresses other campaigns, makes him the focus of earned coverage (i.e. suddenly lots of Bloomberg coverage) etc It certainly seems to be lifting his polling, which might all lead to people thinking he has momentum, thus increasing likelihood of people voting for him? or what is your view on this?
That's the consensus, that he's getting a lot of earned media. I think he has a hard time getting to 15% in a lot of states.
So the idea is earned media = improved profile/favs = more votes? This kind of thing worked for Trump as he surfed off his unpopularity with hostile voters
In this NBC news interview, Liz is unhappy with the Brah online harassment campaign NEW: Asked about online attacks from Sanders supporters & if he has done enough to condemn them, Warren tells me Sanders “has a lot of questions to answer here” & “that’s not how we build an inclusive Dem party & not how we beat Trump. We do not build on a foundation of hate.” pic.twitter.com/wk6Sn3VVyO— Ali Vitali (@alivitali) February 18, 2020
The other candidates have their share....but Sanders is compelled to address it.... Additionally the younger demographic is attracted to Sanders, who are much more web-savvy. Boomers aren’t making memes.....we should all probably get used to it. This is all a distraction by Bloomberg....the billionaire trying to buy the election...with all these irrefutable embarrassing videos getting released.....Al Franken was ended for less
Ugh, I don't have the stamina or enthusiasm today to get into another pursefight about this with @American Brummie. But: 1) what I remember about that study was that it was very focused. I don't doubt their conclusions, I'm no expert. But I 'm not sure their lens was wide enough. Which is to say, if you're selling detergent, you don't show an ad and then hope that it sways views on detergent loyalty. It almost never does. But if you show thousands of ads, that detergent gets shot into your subconscious. And the next time your grocery store doesn't have your preferred detergent, you'll reach for the one that's sitting there smiling and waving in your lizard brain. (By the way, this is why Red Bull GMBH owns shitty poopy soccer teams that smell, they're trying to build subconscious brand loyalty.) 2.) it also ignored the far more nefarious forms of advertising where they're not even trying to sell a candidate or a platform, they're selling persecution, disorder, and panic.
I think what we are saying is that the ads don't work for specific vote for me now conversion - but they do work for other purposes in the campaign. So during the 12 years we have had serious FB campaigning for example, we know that you can spend money on FB ads to raise money for the campaign and get positive ROI And you can combine purposes - e.g It's a Dem Witch Hunt - donate to the Trump campaign now to stop them! Where you promote messaging and raise money at once. 2.) it also ignored the far more nefarious forms of advertising where they're not even trying to sell a candidate or a platform, they're selling persecution, disorder, and panic.[/QUOTE] This is probably the most interesting area. You spend money to establish beliefs and affinity around certain topics. In terms of consumer marketing a lot of $$ is actually spent in this part of the sales cycle. IMO this is why long run content campaigns like Pelosi's impeachment effort is important. You need to establish critical beliefs over a multi-year cycle. The GOP were very good at this via Breitbart etc
He lost NH? Are you serious he won and was declared the winner. He garnered the most votes a plurality that determines the winner. He Tied in Iowa and won 2 out of the 3 categories that the Iowa Democratic party determines is requisite for a victory. You and others trying to short change him is a shame. Having said that your right it's quite possible the moderates unite and he is toast or he keeps winning at a clip of 26-30% and is unable to get a majority of the pledged delegates and he goes into the convention short. What I suspect will happen is in the Spring the democratic voters coalesce around him and he starts to win big instead of having a messy convention fight sort of like Republicans did with Trump after the Indiana primary in 2016.
He's referring to the delegate count. It's a really annoying, pedantic way to analyze the results that isn't in any way based on how normal people view election results. Also, because of how few delegates have actually been allocated, it's a useless way of looking at the state of the race.
Sanders “liabilities” #eLeCtABiLiTy They are all geriatrics! #hE HaSn’T bEeN vETtEd!! So Hillary didn’t Vet her biggest rival? #BrOs ArE mEaN!!! #hEs A sOciALiSt!!! If you google it, Obama was painted as one as well. And it’s Democratic Socialist. Not Marxist, not Maoist, not Stalinist, not Communist...By all accounts, as compared to Europe, Sanders is a moderate. Trumps base would do well to vote for Sanders and get an education, or just pick up a book.
I don't think you're wrong, and I think that even though persuasion ads don't work, you can't stop doing some persuasion advertising because then it appears lopsided in the "media narrative," which can have an impact on the race. As for brand loyalty, I agree that it's why companies with lots of competitors advertise, but I don't think (here I'm in the world of conjecture) Democrats and Republicans need to convince you that it's election season. As an aside, I don't know enough about this particular topic to know the relative marginal gain from a particular advertisement technique/style, and the weak laboratory effects of ads on voters doesn't have (IIRC) enough variation in advertising techniques to make a comparison. I don't bite people's heads off when they engage in thoughtful discussion, you know. And I certainly don't do it when I could be very, very wrong.