4 ms·

Google hiring a head of Republican political advertising

30 points by astdb 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago
Is there a corresponding head of Democrat political advertising? Will they have to share an office resulting in sitcom hilarity? > We are committed to equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, citizenship, marital status, disability, gender identity or Veteran status. Good for you. The Republican party really isn't.
- fwn 10y ago
  I'm foreign and maybe I'm mixing stuff up here but I always thought that giving companies (like Google) the right to decide on whom to employ is percieved to be deeply republican.
  - frogfuzion 10y ago
    I think what he is saying is that the media has painted the Republican Party as the party of homogeneity that supports the majority of people here (typically Caucasian and older). Recently it also portrays them as wanting to scale back certain civil rights/liberties. Whether or not there is truth to these portrayals is a rabbit hole I dare not enter this morning :)
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      You might not want to, but I do, because there is. I absolutely can't stand the term "the media has painted," as though the media is this single conglomerate where somebody (clearly not old white men, though?) pulls strings and sets the narrative. Remember, Fox News and Breitbart are just as much "the media" as anyone else. The extremely liberal National Review concluded just before the election: "Republicans have failed for the past half century to attract non-white voters . . . Republicans have carried the white vote in every general election since 1968." However, it also notes that Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white vote.[1] So I think you have it backwards. The media isn't painting Republicans as homogeneous; Republicans are homogenous, and frankly, aren't even all that worried about pointing it out. In fact, given the current trend towards ethno-nationalism, I think you might say some of them are proud of it. [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demographics-diversifying-republicans-falling-behind http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demograph...
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        > Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white vote. (1) In the 2012 presidential race between a white and a black candidate, most white people voted for the white candidate, and most black people voted for the black candidate. I'm not sure what generalizations you can make about that. (2) In any case, you've chosen a very poor number. Jill Stein won 1% of the non-white vote in 2016, but I hardly think that makes the Green party racist.
        ivraatiems 10y ago
        The point's not that the Republican party is racist (though they might be). The point is that the Republican party is mostly white people supporting the needs and desires of other white people.
        paulddraper 10y ago
        If that is your point, I don't see why you bothered making it. No comment about how well they do at "supporting needs and desires", but the Democratic party is also mostly white people. Turns out that's pretty common in a country of mostly white people.
        ivraatiems 10y ago
        Well, given that America is mostly white, it makes sense. But the Democratic party is also the party of the majority of non-white people, not just most non-white groups, but to my knowledge all of them. That says something. I bothered making it because understanding the demographics of an institution will help you understand its goals and behavior. I guess I'm not sure why you see no value in that.
        paulddraper 10y ago
        It might be a rule of thumb, but it's hardly universal. Bush Sr. got 55% of the Asian vote compared to only 31% for the winning Clinton.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Yes, you are correct. Republicans generally support the right of employers to decide who to hire and for how much. The Democrats generally support legally enforced non-discrimination, equal pay, minimum wage, etc. Google's hiring policy itself could hardly be viewed as partisan.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- jjtheblunt 10y ago
  That last sentence is a cheap shot poorly stated. I think you meant to say that people who fit the description gravitate towards the Republican party as a safe haven for their idiocy, but Abe Lincoln isn't responsible for the creepers, and it's plausible the Republican Party (in the abstract) is aligned to the US not the constituents. One hopes this applies for all parties, though it may not.
frogfuzion 10y ago
Oh great. As if there isn't already enough to further entrench the two party system.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Folks, this is not uncommon for the ad industry. Political entities run a lot of ads, and they don't want to disclose what they are doing to their opponents. The obvious answer is to have one team for Dems, one team for GOP, and a team for orgs (since coordination with candidates is illegal).

30 points by astdb 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago

Is there a corresponding head of Democrat political advertising? Will they have to share an office resulting in sitcom hilarity? > We are committed to equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, citizenship, marital status, disability, gender identity or Veteran status. Good for you. The Republican party really isn't.

fwn 10y ago
I'm foreign and maybe I'm mixing stuff up here but I always thought that giving companies (like Google) the right to decide on whom to employ is percieved to be deeply republican.
- frogfuzion 10y ago
  I think what he is saying is that the media has painted the Republican Party as the party of homogeneity that supports the majority of people here (typically Caucasian and older). Recently it also portrays them as wanting to scale back certain civil rights/liberties. Whether or not there is truth to these portrayals is a rabbit hole I dare not enter this morning :)
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    You might not want to, but I do, because there is. I absolutely can't stand the term "the media has painted," as though the media is this single conglomerate where somebody (clearly not old white men, though?) pulls strings and sets the narrative. Remember, Fox News and Breitbart are just as much "the media" as anyone else. The extremely liberal National Review concluded just before the election: "Republicans have failed for the past half century to attract non-white voters . . . Republicans have carried the white vote in every general election since 1968." However, it also notes that Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white vote.[1] So I think you have it backwards. The media isn't painting Republicans as homogeneous; Republicans are homogenous, and frankly, aren't even all that worried about pointing it out. In fact, given the current trend towards ethno-nationalism, I think you might say some of them are proud of it. [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demographics-diversifying-republicans-falling-behind http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demograph...
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      > Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white vote. (1) In the 2012 presidential race between a white and a black candidate, most white people voted for the white candidate, and most black people voted for the black candidate. I'm not sure what generalizations you can make about that. (2) In any case, you've chosen a very poor number. Jill Stein won 1% of the non-white vote in 2016, but I hardly think that makes the Green party racist.
      - ivraatiems 10y ago
        The point's not that the Republican party is racist (though they might be). The point is that the Republican party is mostly white people supporting the needs and desires of other white people.
        paulddraper 10y ago
        If that is your point, I don't see why you bothered making it. No comment about how well they do at "supporting needs and desires", but the Democratic party is also mostly white people. Turns out that's pretty common in a country of mostly white people.
        ivraatiems 10y ago
        Well, given that America is mostly white, it makes sense. But the Democratic party is also the party of the majority of non-white people, not just most non-white groups, but to my knowledge all of them. That says something. I bothered making it because understanding the demographics of an institution will help you understand its goals and behavior. I guess I'm not sure why you see no value in that.
        paulddraper 10y ago
        It might be a rule of thumb, but it's hardly universal. Bush Sr. got 55% of the Asian vote compared to only 31% for the winning Clinton.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Yes, you are correct. Republicans generally support the right of employers to decide who to hire and for how much. The Democrats generally support legally enforced non-discrimination, equal pay, minimum wage, etc. Google's hiring policy itself could hardly be viewed as partisan.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jjtheblunt 10y ago
That last sentence is a cheap shot poorly stated. I think you meant to say that people who fit the description gravitate towards the Republican party as a safe haven for their idiocy, but Abe Lincoln isn't responsible for the creepers, and it's plausible the Republican Party (in the abstract) is aligned to the US not the constituents. One hopes this applies for all parties, though it may not.

frogfuzion 10y ago

Oh great. As if there isn't already enough to further entrench the two party system.

snowwrestler 10y ago

Folks, this is not uncommon for the ad industry. Political entities run a lot of ads, and they don't want to disclose what they are doing to their opponents. The obvious answer is to have one team for Dems, one team for GOP, and a team for orgs (since coordination with candidates is illegal).