3 ms·
Political parties and their representatives stopped trying to only get their message to voters a long time ago. Today they want to target - and preferably close
by lostmyoldone 7y ago
Political parties and their representatives stopped trying to only get their message to voters a long time ago. Today they want to target - and preferably close to drown - each person with the sequence of messages, video clips, social media reactions, and sound bites that are most likely to get you to vote for them, based on as much data as possible, and oftentimes both using and abusing every cognitive weakness we humans tend to have.
This is almost indistinguishable from what used to be called propaganda, and generally seen as somewhat problematic even before it was inundated with individual targeting and the ungodly amount of realpolitik we see today.
This is not a game where there is ever enough money, and it can work terrifyingly good, almost no matter what agenda you push, as long as the agenda is all that you care about.
Sure it might come tumbling down one day, if the lies becomes to obvious. The damage will still have been done at that point.
If history has taught us anything, it seem to be more of the opposite of what you claim.
- BurningFrog 7y agoThat's your personal analysis. What I said wasn't my opinion, it's the consensus from the research that's been done on this. Anyone who lived through the 2010 California governors race could also see Brown being outspent 5:1, and win easily. There is a correlation/causation illusion here: The (A) winner in votes usually also has the (B) biggest donation to the campaign. Can you see the two main reasons why A causes B, and not the reverse?