4 ms·

> they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop. A minor nit pick: I think you're correct that reelection is their #1 goal, but fundrais

• banads 6y ago
  >fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically. False, see Cambridge Analytica.
  • bhupy 6y ago
    > False, see Cambridge Analytica. Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Also, by now Cambridge Analytica’s data has been shown to have been mostly useless at meaningful targeting. Even the New York Times reported that Cambridge Analytica’s impact on the election of Donald Trump as president was overrated. https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ From the article: “But a dozen Republican consultants and former Trump campaign aides, along with current and former Cambridge employees, say the company’s ability to exploit personality profiles — “our secret sauce,” Mr. Nix once called it — is exaggerated. Cambridge executives now concede that the company never used psychographics in the Trump campaign. The technology — prominently featured in the firm’s sales materials and in media reports that cast Cambridge as a master of the dark campaign arts — remains unproved, according to former employees and Republicans familiar with the firm’s work.” If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
    • banads 6y ago
      >Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Watch The Great Hack. It's not about targeting people who are thoroughly entrenched in their views like you. It's about targeting swing voters >If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. Read up on Social Engineering. Victor Lustig "sold" the Eiffel Tower twice using social engineering tactics.
      • bhupy 6y ago
        > Watch The Great Hack. 1. I've watched it. 2. You need to actually summarize here why it corroborates your argument. If I am attempting to refute your point of view, "Google it" is an extremely unconvincing line of argument. 3. Again, I provided you my sources directly, which show that it has already been reported that CA's impact on the 2016 election has been greatly overstated. > It's about targeting swing voters Sure, and? I can persuade someone of the most incorrect or immoral point of view, and there's not much you can do to prevent me from doing that except to try and make your own case to persuade them back. That is the consequence of living in a free society in which information can be freely disseminated. You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". Is the New York Times "buying votes" by using their financial resources to report with a particular bias? Is Fox News "buying votes" when they do the same? No! They are publishing speech and advertising to try and persuade voters, as is the point of free expression. While you're right that money affords one the platform to disseminate their ideologies, at the end of the day, ordinary voters need to accept that ideology, go to the ballot box, and check the box next to the name. No amount of money will install a leader that cannot convince voters to vote for them in a democratic election.
        • banads 6y ago
          >You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". You don't think money is persuasive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent