5 ms·

Yes, to address as part of Hawkfish, it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes, including voter segmentation and digital activation an

Yes, to address as part of Hawkfish, it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes, including voter segmentation and digital activation and engagement. Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust which has been funded for a decade by right-wing special interests, and the goal of Hawkfish is to level the playing field, for democratic candidates up and down the ballot, and advocacy groups for climate, women's rights, education, gun safety common sense, and more. For folks interested in jobs from the data science and full-stack Eng side, job postings are here: https://boards.greenhouse.io/hawkfish/ https://boards.greenhouse.io/hawkfish/ Jeff Glueck

jaksawesome 7y ago
I'm quite surprised to hear this. When I was finishing up school (2013), our professor had worked out an agreement with the two congressional campaigns to allow our class to volunteer on both sides of the aisle. At that time, Republican data might as well have been non-existent when compared to the Democratic Votebuilder system.
- dillondoyle 7y ago
  the R version of votebuilder sucks, but the larger for-profit data-warehousing model has been a big asset almost a decade before Ds caught on (and are still losing digital). Rs have been leading here for a long time. Kochs funded for-profit i360 which seems to me to be the first, most successful model. They enabled programmatic access to voter data (and even as a D buyer I was able to execute against) while most D campaigns below presidential weren't even really buying programmatic.
steve19 7y ago
> Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust Do you have any actual evidence for that? Because mainstream media have been saying the opposite since Obama. What you said is exactly what a company looking for dem dollars would say. Which is pretty much what Cambridge Analytic said to the gop candidates.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- huac 7y ago
  Here's a mainstream article: https://www.wired.com/story/democrats-fix-crumbling-data-operation/ https://www.wired.com/story/democrats-fix-crumbling-data-ope..., I have heard that both the previous setup and the new setup are worse than reported. On a different level, Obama drastically reduced the funding for the DNC and weakened the organization, possibly as part of a grand bargain with Hillary (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/brazile-says-obama-left-dnc-deep-debt-clinton-camp/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/brazile-says...). Additionally, the consensus is that Trump's team embraced FB ads / other digital much more than Clinton's team. FB embedded "representatives" (presumably sales/operations people who understood how to best use FB ads) with both campaigns but only Trump's really listened: "Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t have Facebook employees stationed on site, according to people familiar with the campaign. One former Clinton campaign official said the campaign didn’t want to give Facebook employees “24/7 opportunity” to sell more ads by embedding with its staff. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton didn’t respond to a request for comment." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebooks-embed-in-the-trump-campaign-helped-the-president-win-11574521712 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebooks-embed-in-the-trum...). Of course, to Kick's point, the specific company being discussed here is a Bloomberg operation, not a Democratic or "progressive" operation, whatever those terms mean. If Sanders or Warren win the primary, will Bloomberg redirect the company to their control / use?
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  You're thinking of Project Narwhal: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-how-a-top-secret-obama-campaign-program-could-change-the-2012-race.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-... I think the distinction here may be "the Obama campaign" vs "the DNC" but yes, the media lauded expansive data collection, microtargeting, and get out to vote (gotv) efforts in the ancient days of 2012-2015.
spamizbad 7y ago
Is this platform also against certain things, like getting weaponized against universal health coverage?
- natechols 7y ago
  Bloomberg's own campaign site promotes universal coverage and specifically promotes adding a public option to the ACA. (Disclaimer: not a Bloomberg supporter and don't plan to be, I just know how to use Google to find stuff like this out.)
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    public option generally does not equivocate to universal coverage. If he advocated against public option for Single Payer, then you could call it universal/progressive. Public option doesn't address runaway drug spending. 1 bulk purchaser of drugs could set the price basically that we're willing to pay, the federal government could also strip patents of companies found price-fixing or price-gouging. I mean he's rich, so he def. could be progressive in that maybe he doesn't need the money the pharmacy/insurance companies would give him to not be progressive, but I'd have to see it before I believe it. I mean there are progressive billionaires - Nick hanover has given tons of Ted talks on income inequality. There's definitely other options this cycle though if you're skeptical and want a real progressive, so why take the chance?
    - natechols 7y ago
      Single payer may guarantee universal coverage, but it is not the only route to achieving it - there are multiple counter-examples among advanced nations. If your goal is to improve health care and reduce costs, you should consider all options, not just the ones that flatter your ideological biases. That doesn't mean accepting clearly bad-faith arguments like "let's abolish malpractice lawsuits" at face value, but it does mean you have to explain why (for example) Germany's multi-payer health insurance system would be unacceptable for Americans. (Germany is significantly more socialized than the ACA, but significantly less socialized than Warren's current M4A plan. EDIT: or maybe not, as comment below suggests, but it definitely includes private health insurers, which Warren has said she would abolish.)
slg 7y ago
> it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes Are you able to share any other candidates or causes you have worked with? Bloomberg isn't exactly the most popular candidate among progressives and without knowing the other customers this looks like a vanity company with the primary goal of getting him elected.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
Democrat != progressive. Just sayin'. Progressive test is: Pro Single-payer. Pro billionaire tax. Pro free community college. Against insane military complex budgets. I mean, I'd rather him succeed ONLY if it keeps Koch's in check, but don't call it progressive unless it actually brings us something progressive like Bernie Sanders, which I doubt it will - at least in the short term. I mean Bloomberg till recently was an independent, and not a super progressive one at that. Unless he's turning progressive because that's where the 'youth' is, and he's following trends because there's money in that, which if there's money in being progressive I'm all for cashing out on it to bring about progressive means.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Ay and yer only a true scotsman if ya wear a kilt and have a beard!
  - justincredible 7y ago
    only if you play golf in the highlands.
- maximente 7y ago
  odd that so called progressives don't need to care about climate change nor womens' or minority rights per this test. FWIW labels like this are largely useless and generally are about value signaling more than action. there are countless so called progressive politicians who did nothing when push came to shove. it's just another word that sounds nice but means nothing.

jaksawesome 7y ago

I'm quite surprised to hear this. When I was finishing up school (2013), our professor had worked out an agreement with the two congressional campaigns to allow our class to volunteer on both sides of the aisle. At that time, Republican data might as well have been non-existent when compared to the Democratic Votebuilder system.

dillondoyle 7y ago
the R version of votebuilder sucks, but the larger for-profit data-warehousing model has been a big asset almost a decade before Ds caught on (and are still losing digital). Rs have been leading here for a long time. Kochs funded for-profit i360 which seems to me to be the first, most successful model. They enabled programmatic access to voter data (and even as a D buyer I was able to execute against) while most D campaigns below presidential weren't even really buying programmatic.

steve19 7y ago

> Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust Do you have any actual evidence for that? Because mainstream media have been saying the opposite since Obama. What you said is exactly what a company looking for dem dollars would say. Which is pretty much what Cambridge Analytic said to the gop candidates.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
huac 7y ago
Here's a mainstream article: https://www.wired.com/story/democrats-fix-crumbling-data-operation/ https://www.wired.com/story/democrats-fix-crumbling-data-ope..., I have heard that both the previous setup and the new setup are worse than reported. On a different level, Obama drastically reduced the funding for the DNC and weakened the organization, possibly as part of a grand bargain with Hillary (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/brazile-says-obama-left-dnc-deep-debt-clinton-camp/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/brazile-says...). Additionally, the consensus is that Trump's team embraced FB ads / other digital much more than Clinton's team. FB embedded "representatives" (presumably sales/operations people who understood how to best use FB ads) with both campaigns but only Trump's really listened: "Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t have Facebook employees stationed on site, according to people familiar with the campaign. One former Clinton campaign official said the campaign didn’t want to give Facebook employees “24/7 opportunity” to sell more ads by embedding with its staff. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton didn’t respond to a request for comment." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebooks-embed-in-the-trump-campaign-helped-the-president-win-11574521712 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-facebooks-embed-in-the-trum...). Of course, to Kick's point, the specific company being discussed here is a Bloomberg operation, not a Democratic or "progressive" operation, whatever those terms mean. If Sanders or Warren win the primary, will Bloomberg redirect the company to their control / use?
caseysoftware 7y ago
You're thinking of Project Narwhal: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-how-a-top-secret-obama-campaign-program-could-change-the-2012-race.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-... I think the distinction here may be "the Obama campaign" vs "the DNC" but yes, the media lauded expansive data collection, microtargeting, and get out to vote (gotv) efforts in the ancient days of 2012-2015.

spamizbad 7y ago

Is this platform also against certain things, like getting weaponized against universal health coverage?

natechols 7y ago
Bloomberg's own campaign site promotes universal coverage and specifically promotes adding a public option to the ACA. (Disclaimer: not a Bloomberg supporter and don't plan to be, I just know how to use Google to find stuff like this out.)
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  public option generally does not equivocate to universal coverage. If he advocated against public option for Single Payer, then you could call it universal/progressive. Public option doesn't address runaway drug spending. 1 bulk purchaser of drugs could set the price basically that we're willing to pay, the federal government could also strip patents of companies found price-fixing or price-gouging. I mean he's rich, so he def. could be progressive in that maybe he doesn't need the money the pharmacy/insurance companies would give him to not be progressive, but I'd have to see it before I believe it. I mean there are progressive billionaires - Nick hanover has given tons of Ted talks on income inequality. There's definitely other options this cycle though if you're skeptical and want a real progressive, so why take the chance?
  - natechols 7y ago
    Single payer may guarantee universal coverage, but it is not the only route to achieving it - there are multiple counter-examples among advanced nations. If your goal is to improve health care and reduce costs, you should consider all options, not just the ones that flatter your ideological biases. That doesn't mean accepting clearly bad-faith arguments like "let's abolish malpractice lawsuits" at face value, but it does mean you have to explain why (for example) Germany's multi-payer health insurance system would be unacceptable for Americans. (Germany is significantly more socialized than the ACA, but significantly less socialized than Warren's current M4A plan. EDIT: or maybe not, as comment below suggests, but it definitely includes private health insurers, which Warren has said she would abolish.)

slg 7y ago

> it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes Are you able to share any other candidates or causes you have worked with? Bloomberg isn't exactly the most popular candidate among progressives and without knowing the other customers this looks like a vanity company with the primary goal of getting him elected.

gremlinsinc 7y ago

Democrat != progressive. Just sayin'. Progressive test is: Pro Single-payer. Pro billionaire tax. Pro free community college. Against insane military complex budgets. I mean, I'd rather him succeed ONLY if it keeps Koch's in check, but don't call it progressive unless it actually brings us something progressive like Bernie Sanders, which I doubt it will - at least in the short term. I mean Bloomberg till recently was an independent, and not a super progressive one at that. Unless he's turning progressive because that's where the 'youth' is, and he's following trends because there's money in that, which if there's money in being progressive I'm all for cashing out on it to bring about progressive means.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Ay and yer only a true scotsman if ya wear a kilt and have a beard!
- justincredible 7y ago
  only if you play golf in the highlands.
maximente 7y ago
odd that so called progressives don't need to care about climate change nor womens' or minority rights per this test. FWIW labels like this are largely useless and generally are about value signaling more than action. there are countless so called progressive politicians who did nothing when push came to shove. it's just another word that sounds nice but means nothing.