4 ms·

Am I reading this wrong or does it seem like the majority of these are for Harris/Democrats?

by Dig1t 2y ago

Dwedit 2y ago
When one campaign raises 3 times as much money as the other campaign, that tends to happen.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Interesting that money is considered to have a large influence on US elections, one side has a lot more money, and yet the race is incredibly close.
  - cwillu 2y ago
    The polling may be close, but we really won't know if the election is close until the final numbers come out.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    Money is a lot in US politics, but Michael Bloomberg will tell you himself that it isn't everything. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20January,in%20a%20US%20presidential%20election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_preside....
  - nradov 2y ago
    Money has an influence but it's not decisive. In the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton / Kaine campaign spent about twice as much as their opponents but still lost. Could they have won with even more money? Maybe?
  - Yawrehto 2y ago
    In my view, money might once have, but the number of persuadable voters is quite low. If someone has decided to vote for Trump, it's unlikely they will change their mind. And if someone is undecided, they'll probably vote for Trump, because let's face it, most people voting for Harris aren't voting because they like her platform - they're voting because they dislike Trump. If you don't dislike Trump, Harris's platform is nothing world-changingly new or different.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      > most people voting for Harris aren't voting because they like her platform - they're voting because they dislike Trump That seems to be a popular conclusion by people who are on the Trump side. I see little evidence for it in real life. Many factors go into a political choice, and sure, disliking Trump is one of them, but most Harris supporters would not be voting R in any case because they do not agree with that platform.
      - Yawrehto 2y ago
        True. But if you look at Harris's platform, it's not very ground-breaking, honestly. It's mostly just par for the course. A fair portion of the reason my family is voting for them is because Trump is a danger to democracy. Frankly, I'd barely looked at her platform - I just knew Trump had tried to destroy American democracy, and that is all that matters. I don't know how many people are genuinely enthused about her platform. Mostly it feels like it's fueled by hating Trump's platform and Trump (which, to be clear, is a valid reason!). I guess I should have been clearer - I meant that they're voting Harris not because her platform is great (honestly it seems about average for Democratic candidates), but because they dislike Trump's platform and Trump himself. They don't really care what Harris is proposing, as long as it's vaguely reasonable.
      - 0x457 2y ago
        Well, I don't like her and her platform is alright compared to trump's, but that just words. Tim Walz is alright tho. I still voted for her. My sample size is definetly biased and small, but that is the sentiment I get from her voters that I know.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Yes remember when billionaire money interfering in election campaigns was considered a bad thing?
loeg 2y ago
What do you think the demographics are of Google ad viewers vs Harris / Trump potential voters? But also, yes, the Harris campaign has spent about 2x as much in aggregate: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/elections/kamala-harris-donald-trump-campaign-finance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/elections/kamala-harri...
- Macha 2y ago
  I'd expect the demographics of google ad viewers to be more or less "the internet at large, minus a few markets like China were Google is much less prevalent, and a few groups techy enough to disproportionately run adblockers"
  - afavour 2y ago
    If I were in the Trump campaign I'd be targeting Facebook over Google by a fair margin. A lot of older folks live on there.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      "Facebook users" or "Google users" are way too broad for a political campaign ad to target. Party A's ad will go to too many of Party B's users and vice versa. They need to be much more carefully targeted to be effective. The purpose of a political ad is not to convince undecided people to vote for [party]. The number of undecideds is vanishingly small, so there's no ROI there. The purpose of a political ad is to convince people who have already picked a side to actually vote vs not voting. So you need to carefully target your "go vote" message to your own team.
  - loeg 2y ago
    > more or less "the internet at large" Right. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-uses-the-internet https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... Older voters are less likely to use the internet (and those who do use it probably use it less). And there's a small urban/rural divide still.
  - 2y ago
teach 2y ago
I suspect that the given the different demographics of the voting population, the republican side probably advertises more on Facebook.
- loeg 2y ago
  Or day time TV, yeah.
bakugo 2y ago
[flagged]
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  I wonder who the Republicans are aligned with... I can't think of an answer.
  - older 2y ago
    It's Musk. Opposite of economic elites!
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      The world's wealthiest man, who has aligned himself with a billionaire property developer and reality-TV host, isn't part of the "economic elite?" Some days I just wake up on the wrong side of the rabbit hole, I guess.
      - reverius42 2y ago
        I read it as sarcasm.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      Well, one person does not make an entire class. But yeah, people that want him to send them some federal money... Nah, most of them seem to be on the other side too. And yet an entire party is supporting the guy. And he's getting about half of the votes. Maybe a lot of people are supporting him is secret.
  - bakugo 2y ago
    Not the economic elites, or at least not most of them, otherwise they'd be better funded. Hope that makes sense.
    - Yawrehto 2y ago
romanovcode 2y ago
You are reading it right
jabroni_salad 2y ago
Keep in mind it is only google. Trump has been developing his comms channels for a decade with a core base composed of people who hate 'the media' in every form. And he has gotten pretty good at using those channels. It's also the case that everyone has heard of him now (you may recall that he was recently The President). Harris was put into candidacy at the last second and needs to speedrun building a president's worth of goodwill from scratch against a guy who functionally already has it. That means her marketing base is 'the entire country' and you need to hit that as hard as possible as fast as possible, which is expensive.

Am I reading this wrong or does it seem like the majority of these are for Harris/Democrats?

by Dig1t 2y ago

Am I reading this wrong or does it seem like the majority of these are for Harris/Democrats?

Dwedit 2y ago

When one campaign raises 3 times as much money as the other campaign, that tends to happen.

lucianbr 2y ago
Interesting that money is considered to have a large influence on US elections, one side has a lot more money, and yet the race is incredibly close.
- cwillu 2y ago
  The polling may be close, but we really won't know if the election is close until the final numbers come out.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  Money is a lot in US politics, but Michael Bloomberg will tell you himself that it isn't everything. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20January,in%20a%20US%20presidential%20election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_preside....
- nradov 2y ago
  Money has an influence but it's not decisive. In the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton / Kaine campaign spent about twice as much as their opponents but still lost. Could they have won with even more money? Maybe?
- Yawrehto 2y ago
  In my view, money might once have, but the number of persuadable voters is quite low. If someone has decided to vote for Trump, it's unlikely they will change their mind. And if someone is undecided, they'll probably vote for Trump, because let's face it, most people voting for Harris aren't voting because they like her platform - they're voting because they dislike Trump. If you don't dislike Trump, Harris's platform is nothing world-changingly new or different.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > most people voting for Harris aren't voting because they like her platform - they're voting because they dislike Trump That seems to be a popular conclusion by people who are on the Trump side. I see little evidence for it in real life. Many factors go into a political choice, and sure, disliking Trump is one of them, but most Harris supporters would not be voting R in any case because they do not agree with that platform.
    - Yawrehto 2y ago
      True. But if you look at Harris's platform, it's not very ground-breaking, honestly. It's mostly just par for the course. A fair portion of the reason my family is voting for them is because Trump is a danger to democracy. Frankly, I'd barely looked at her platform - I just knew Trump had tried to destroy American democracy, and that is all that matters. I don't know how many people are genuinely enthused about her platform. Mostly it feels like it's fueled by hating Trump's platform and Trump (which, to be clear, is a valid reason!). I guess I should have been clearer - I meant that they're voting Harris not because her platform is great (honestly it seems about average for Democratic candidates), but because they dislike Trump's platform and Trump himself. They don't really care what Harris is proposing, as long as it's vaguely reasonable.
    - 0x457 2y ago
      Well, I don't like her and her platform is alright compared to trump's, but that just words. Tim Walz is alright tho. I still voted for her. My sample size is definetly biased and small, but that is the sentiment I get from her voters that I know.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lazyeye 2y ago
Yes remember when billionaire money interfering in election campaigns was considered a bad thing?

loeg 2y ago

What do you think the demographics are of Google ad viewers vs Harris / Trump potential voters? But also, yes, the Harris campaign has spent about 2x as much in aggregate: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/elections/kamala-harris-donald-trump-campaign-finance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/elections/kamala-harri...

Macha 2y ago
I'd expect the demographics of google ad viewers to be more or less "the internet at large, minus a few markets like China were Google is much less prevalent, and a few groups techy enough to disproportionately run adblockers"
- afavour 2y ago
  If I were in the Trump campaign I'd be targeting Facebook over Google by a fair margin. A lot of older folks live on there.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    "Facebook users" or "Google users" are way too broad for a political campaign ad to target. Party A's ad will go to too many of Party B's users and vice versa. They need to be much more carefully targeted to be effective. The purpose of a political ad is not to convince undecided people to vote for [party]. The number of undecideds is vanishingly small, so there's no ROI there. The purpose of a political ad is to convince people who have already picked a side to actually vote vs not voting. So you need to carefully target your "go vote" message to your own team.
- loeg 2y ago
  > more or less "the internet at large" Right. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-uses-the-internet https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... Older voters are less likely to use the internet (and those who do use it probably use it less). And there's a small urban/rural divide still.
- 2y ago

teach 2y ago

I suspect that the given the different demographics of the voting population, the republican side probably advertises more on Facebook.

loeg 2y ago
Or day time TV, yeah.

bakugo 2y ago

[flagged]

marcosdumay 2y ago
I wonder who the Republicans are aligned with... I can't think of an answer.
- older 2y ago
  It's Musk. Opposite of economic elites!
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    The world's wealthiest man, who has aligned himself with a billionaire property developer and reality-TV host, isn't part of the "economic elite?" Some days I just wake up on the wrong side of the rabbit hole, I guess.
    - reverius42 2y ago
      I read it as sarcasm.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Well, one person does not make an entire class. But yeah, people that want him to send them some federal money... Nah, most of them seem to be on the other side too. And yet an entire party is supporting the guy. And he's getting about half of the votes. Maybe a lot of people are supporting him is secret.
- bakugo 2y ago
  Not the economic elites, or at least not most of them, otherwise they'd be better funded. Hope that makes sense.
  - Yawrehto 2y ago

romanovcode 2y ago

You are reading it right

jabroni_salad 2y ago

Keep in mind it is only google. Trump has been developing his comms channels for a decade with a core base composed of people who hate 'the media' in every form. And he has gotten pretty good at using those channels. It's also the case that everyone has heard of him now (you may recall that he was recently The President). Harris was put into candidacy at the last second and needs to speedrun building a president's worth of goodwill from scratch against a guy who functionally already has it. That means her marketing base is 'the entire country' and you need to hit that as hard as possible as fast as possible, which is expensive.