5 ms·

I find this really interesting, but I'm unclear on the proof that this made a big difference for Obama's campaign success. I'm sure Romney had people crunching

I find this really interesting, but I'm unclear on the proof that this made a big difference for Obama's campaign success. I'm sure Romney had people crunching the numbers as well, and he actually raised more money than Obama. This was a pretty narrow victory, there are a lot of structural, ideological, and demographic biases at work here, and Obama did worse among most groups than he did in 2008. Put another way, is there any evidence that Obama would have lost or even done much worse without this data crunching effort?

d23 14y ago
It may have been a narrow victory in the popular vote, but it was an absolute stomp in the electoral college. Obviously we can't go back in time and try it a different way so you're never going to have any "proof", but there was clearly a strategic advantage by the Obama camp in the battleground states.
ajross 14y ago
There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disbelieved the demographic makeup of the polls. So yeah, it's hard to believe the republican campaign could have run a heavily data-driven campaign. And the evidence that Obama would have actually lost is obviously not going to turn up. But you can look at the relative performance in "swing" states vs. the general electorate for hints. He clearly outperformed among the demographics that ended up deciding the election, as witnessed by the very large electoral victory on the basis of a very narrow (currently <2% I believe) popular vote margin.
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disbelieved the demographic makeup of the polls. So yeah, it's hard to believe the republican campaign could have run a heavily data-driven campaign. Sorry, what is that evidence? The fact that they were saying they thought they would win? The fact that they didn't give up? Did you really expect them to? It's important not to confuse the public behavior of a campaign with their internal beliefs. And Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently.
  - ajross 14y ago
    The late attempts to to throw campaigning and advertising into states late Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which, by the now-known-to-be-correct polls, were basically unwinnable) are probably the best evidence. There's also the more squishy testimony of journalists and pundits, who reported on genuine surprise coming from the senior Romney people about the exit polls. Karl Rove's freakout on FOX last night probably also counts. None of that proves anything. But I think the burden of proof really goes the other way: the Obama campaign clearly seems to have played the moneyball correctly here. If Romney's folks knew they were going to lose, you'd have to show that. And I don't know how to interpret "Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently". If you're talking about polling could have been different had he been winning, then of course: we'd be having the same argument in reverse. Though again, the evidence seems to say that Obama would still have outperformed the popular vote margin and thus have still been running a better data-driven campaign. If you're saying that the data suggested by the end-campaign polls could have supported a Romney win, then no: that's just wrong, as evidenced by the discussion we're having. That kind of thinking is exactly the kind of "faith-based" notion that the Romney campaign is accused of relying on. The data showed a clear Obama victory. The data was right. Period.
    - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
      I was interpreting your stance as a verdict on the Romney campaign's behavior over the last couple months, rather than just last night. And a month or two ago, they were behind according to the polls but they definitely could have still won. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin I think are evidence of exactly the opposite: they knew they were going to lose Ohio and they had money to burn, so they threw a hail mary. Because why not?
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Actually... The Romney campaign is reported to have believed they were winning late into the day yesterday. Based on what their model was telling them. Not "faith", but data. A model. Math. I have a strong suspicion in there's a good book in this election- how one set of Big Data led one team in the right direction, and another set of Big Data led the other team in the wrong direction. This to me is the absolutely crucial thing to keep in mind. You can have your model and have your data, but that doesn't mean you've picked the right model and the right data. Not the first time that lesson has been demonstrated, and it won't be the last.
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>This was a pretty narrow victory What exactly is "pretty narrow" about a 303-206 electoral split?
- protomyth 14y ago
  I think he meant population-wise which doesn't reflect in the electoral count except in analyzing effects of 3rd parties on results.
jobu 14y ago
"I'm sure Romney had people crunching the numbers as well, and he actually raised more money than Obama." Actually if you look at direct contributions, Obama raised nearly double what Romney brought in: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php SuperPACs allowed Romney to compete financially, but I don't think the number crunchers they talked about in the Time article were involved in the PACs
ZachPruckowski 14y ago
There is no way to disaggregate all the hundreds of factors that went into the 2012 election. So we'll probably never be able to say "X% of Obama's victory came from data mining and Y% came from hiring an addition Z Field Organizers". But given the disadvantages Obama had going in, he definitely performed towards the top-end of what could be expected.
brown9-2 14y ago
I think you assume that all "number crunching" is equal.
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  I absolutely do not, but how do you know which campaign had better number crunchers? You could go by who won, but you don't have a control; how do you know who would have won without the supposed advantage of the supposedly superior number crunchers behind the winning campaign?
  - reddit_clone 14y ago
    I heard that Romney's number crunchers believed that they were winning till late evening Tuesday. What other blunders did they make early on in the campaign?
sethg 14y ago
The Romney campaign’s equivalent was apparently some system called “Orca”, which involved volunteers on the ground sending information to a central location about the conditions that they saw. It wasn’t as extensive, and now we know that it gave misleading information to the campaign. Two other things to keep in mind: (1) The Republican leadership has been really really invested in the “fake it ’till you make it” school of persuasion: if you act like a winner, this will persuade the people who want to get behind a winner, and then you will win. (2) Democratic operatives have known for decades that the demographic groups more likely to vote for them are also the groups that are less likely to vote at all. The Clinton-era solution to this problem was to pitch a message that was more likely to resonate with the population that was already voting; the Obama-era solution is to get more of those unlikely voters into the voting booths. Republicans don’t have as much headroom to improve their turnout.
snowwrestler 14y ago
There is substantial and consistent reporting that Tuesday night's results were a surprise/shock to many Republican candidates and the associated outside groups. We know that they did a lot of number crunching themselves, so the implication is that the quality of Obama's data operation was superior--in that their predictions more closely resembled the actual results.

d23 14y ago

It may have been a narrow victory in the popular vote, but it was an absolute stomp in the electoral college. Obviously we can't go back in time and try it a different way so you're never going to have any "proof", but there was clearly a strategic advantage by the Obama camp in the battleground states.

ajross 14y ago

There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disbelieved the demographic makeup of the polls. So yeah, it's hard to believe the republican campaign could have run a heavily data-driven campaign. And the evidence that Obama would have actually lost is obviously not going to turn up. But you can look at the relative performance in "swing" states vs. the general electorate for hints. He clearly outperformed among the demographics that ended up deciding the election, as witnessed by the very large electoral victory on the basis of a very narrow (currently <2% I believe) popular vote margin.

ryanwaggoner 14y ago
There's at least some evidence that, in fact, the Romney campaign fooled itself into believing the "unskewed" polling models which simply (and incorrectly) disbelieved the demographic makeup of the polls. So yeah, it's hard to believe the republican campaign could have run a heavily data-driven campaign. Sorry, what is that evidence? The fact that they were saying they thought they would win? The fact that they didn't give up? Did you really expect them to? It's important not to confuse the public behavior of a campaign with their internal beliefs. And Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently.
- ajross 14y ago
  The late attempts to to throw campaigning and advertising into states late Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which, by the now-known-to-be-correct polls, were basically unwinnable) are probably the best evidence. There's also the more squishy testimony of journalists and pundits, who reported on genuine surprise coming from the senior Romney people about the exit polls. Karl Rove's freakout on FOX last night probably also counts. None of that proves anything. But I think the burden of proof really goes the other way: the Obama campaign clearly seems to have played the moneyball correctly here. If Romney's folks knew they were going to lose, you'd have to show that. And I don't know how to interpret "Romney really could have won this, had things gone a little differently". If you're talking about polling could have been different had he been winning, then of course: we'd be having the same argument in reverse. Though again, the evidence seems to say that Obama would still have outperformed the popular vote margin and thus have still been running a better data-driven campaign. If you're saying that the data suggested by the end-campaign polls could have supported a Romney win, then no: that's just wrong, as evidenced by the discussion we're having. That kind of thinking is exactly the kind of "faith-based" notion that the Romney campaign is accused of relying on. The data showed a clear Obama victory. The data was right. Period.
  - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
    I was interpreting your stance as a verdict on the Romney campaign's behavior over the last couple months, rather than just last night. And a month or two ago, they were behind according to the polls but they definitely could have still won. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin I think are evidence of exactly the opposite: they knew they were going to lose Ohio and they had money to burn, so they threw a hail mary. Because why not?
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Actually... The Romney campaign is reported to have believed they were winning late into the day yesterday. Based on what their model was telling them. Not "faith", but data. A model. Math. I have a strong suspicion in there's a good book in this election- how one set of Big Data led one team in the right direction, and another set of Big Data led the other team in the wrong direction. This to me is the absolutely crucial thing to keep in mind. You can have your model and have your data, but that doesn't mean you've picked the right model and the right data. Not the first time that lesson has been demonstrated, and it won't be the last.

enraged_camel 14y ago

>>This was a pretty narrow victory What exactly is "pretty narrow" about a 303-206 electoral split?

protomyth 14y ago
I think he meant population-wise which doesn't reflect in the electoral count except in analyzing effects of 3rd parties on results.

jobu 14y ago

"I'm sure Romney had people crunching the numbers as well, and he actually raised more money than Obama." Actually if you look at direct contributions, Obama raised nearly double what Romney brought in: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php SuperPACs allowed Romney to compete financially, but I don't think the number crunchers they talked about in the Time article were involved in the PACs

ZachPruckowski 14y ago

There is no way to disaggregate all the hundreds of factors that went into the 2012 election. So we'll probably never be able to say "X% of Obama's victory came from data mining and Y% came from hiring an addition Z Field Organizers". But given the disadvantages Obama had going in, he definitely performed towards the top-end of what could be expected.

brown9-2 14y ago

I think you assume that all "number crunching" is equal.

ryanwaggoner 14y ago
I absolutely do not, but how do you know which campaign had better number crunchers? You could go by who won, but you don't have a control; how do you know who would have won without the supposed advantage of the supposedly superior number crunchers behind the winning campaign?
- reddit_clone 14y ago
  I heard that Romney's number crunchers believed that they were winning till late evening Tuesday. What other blunders did they make early on in the campaign?

sethg 14y ago

The Romney campaign’s equivalent was apparently some system called “Orca”, which involved volunteers on the ground sending information to a central location about the conditions that they saw. It wasn’t as extensive, and now we know that it gave misleading information to the campaign. Two other things to keep in mind: (1) The Republican leadership has been really really invested in the “fake it ’till you make it” school of persuasion: if you act like a winner, this will persuade the people who want to get behind a winner, and then you will win. (2) Democratic operatives have known for decades that the demographic groups more likely to vote for them are also the groups that are less likely to vote at all. The Clinton-era solution to this problem was to pitch a message that was more likely to resonate with the population that was already voting; the Obama-era solution is to get more of those unlikely voters into the voting booths. Republicans don’t have as much headroom to improve their turnout.

snowwrestler 14y ago

There is substantial and consistent reporting that Tuesday night's results were a surprise/shock to many Republican candidates and the associated outside groups. We know that they did a lot of number crunching themselves, so the implication is that the quality of Obama's data operation was superior--in that their predictions more closely resembled the actual results.