2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Josquius]

He's over 50% and has added votes.

But my argument is that it's like gigs for a comedian working on his set. He uses the rallies to workshop his material.

He's on 50% what?
Of the overall vote? I'm not sure where this connects to whether his rallies were actually a particularly useful part of his campaign.

I just don't buy this - and I never have. Part of that is, possibly, spending most of my working life working in some way with online, personalised/behavioural advertising and the entire industry is riddled with fraud and unverifiable claims. Have a drink with anyone in it and they'll basically all admit that in many ways it is a bit of a con. It's also a dying and declining ecosystem. So I slightly struggle with that practical, professional experience of this stuff and the very hyperbolic claims about its impact in politics (which is, incidentally, very much like the salespitch you get from the companies about how effective they are ). I struggle to believe that the one area they've really, really cracked is politics.

But yes, Facebook will deny it but are very happy if you think they're so good they can win an American election. Steve Bannon and Dom Cummings etc want people to think they're geniuses in Bond villain lairs.

I've been around this stuff professionally too.
There's definitely a tonne of snake oil out there. Its nowhere near as good in a lot of areas as many might believe. But at the same time it actually is very good in others; better even considering stuff most wouldn't have thought of.

The idea that with all this hyper targeting you can precisely rebuild a person in a specific way is of course untrue.
But that's the beauty of Trump and co. They don't need to get people believing perfectly crafted arguments. They just throw out a tonne of shit to tap into raw emotion, pretty basic algorithms work to help hone in on the stuff that works.
Did someone dwell on a story a while, did they like it, did they reply, did they share... none of this is rocket science. Its all very measurable and exploitable data.
 
Its a lot easier to target something that will get someone upset than to figure out a product they're actually going to buy. Its pretty well known that facebook et al really thrive on engagement rather than happiness and the best form of engagement comes from negative emotion.

I think it's a way for people to delegitimise democratic results they don't like (it was actually Russians/Cambridge Analytica etc) which is challenging after this election and to explain away defeat. We didn't lose because we weren't good enough, we were just too pure for this world.

That people don't like the results is irrelevant.
Little in life has a single cause. But to dismiss the fact that far right populism is heavily built on social media toxicity is just denying reality.
Absolutely the Democrats made a tonne of mistakes- not doing anything to counter this reality for instance- but that doesn't make the notes about how Trump builds a lot of support any less true.

I also think, with this example, that it gets the internet wrong. I think the reason microtargeting doesn't work anymore is that everyone can see what you're saying across social media - I think one of the reasons for polarisation is that we can, suddenly, all see all the freaky little sub-cultures on all sides. The stuff on Haitians eating pets was in no way micro-targeted. It was at a rally, extensively reported for weeks on all the news channels, raised in the debate etc - Trump's very good at earning free media in the old media.

But I think Trump's effectiveness is precisely that he isn't surgically targeting the precise voter in Pennsylvania that he can swing. It's that he's broadcasting and that his message is not targeted it is, if nothing else, broad. And I think as Syt says prompts an emotional response (positive and negative). I've said it before but I think the internet phenomenon that's key to Trump is fan culture - it's the Messi v Ronaldo wars on social media (and I think a few other figures, like Corbyn have had similar) - and Trump's broad message is part of that because it allows for basically fanfic, fanvids, for a parasocial bond etc. And I think that's a new attitude to politics and a political leader which I think comes from internet culture.

Trump absolutely isn't surgically targeting people. He is very broad indeed.
Those behind him however?
Surgical is the wrong word for it. Surgical implies they get it spot on first time. The way it works tends to be far more in the realm of saturation bombardment and steadily honing in on a target. Just keep the shit flying until you get a hit. Then you focus your stuff ever tighter.

By keeping the early range finding stuff very broad and not particularly related to politics at all they can often very neatly get some hooks into people without them noticing it has even happened.
I remember an early example of this, 15 years ago or so, one of those British Nazi groups, Britain First maybe, spewing innocent stuff around facebook pictures of dogs and various hard to disagree with things to get their hooks into boomers before steadily building up the racism.
And this was very early stuff, very manual, not much money, no algorithms or anything like that. Yet it worked.
With the power of modern technology, vast sums, hostile state actors, supporters ownership of platforms, and so on... Don't underestimate what even very simple techniques can accomplish.

And again it goes back to the core problem of how the right taps into system 1 whilst the left is left floundering with system 2. Its a lot easier to get people reactive and angry then to get them believing in positive change.

[HVC]

One of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?

[crazy canuck]

The incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water.  Lots of Democratic incumbents won.

In the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK.  That dynamic doesn't work for President.

You cut out the rest of my post that went on to explain that incumbency is actually a powerful force for Presidents.  Its the mid terms where they have the problem.

[DGuller]

One of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?

It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.

[The Minsky Moment]

So for Attorney General of USA, the largest legal department in the free world, the President-elect has nominated a pedo whose entire legal experience consists of 2 years as a junior associate in a small Florida law firm.

For defense secretary, a vast government department with a near trillion dollar budget and 3 million employees, a former National Guard platoon leader turned TV newstainment host with zero managerial experience.

For the Director of National Intelligence, the executive that heads up the entire US intelligence establishment, a former military policeman and four term Congresswoman with no background or experience in intelligence gathering or managing an agency (or anything else), but a troubling history of spreading FSB backed narratives and conspiracy theories.

And we are supposed to believe that voters turned against the Democrats because they didn't choose people based on merit?

[Grey Fox]

An entire class of capital looked at Russia and thought themselves we can be those Oligarch in the US. Trump is fastforwarding them the keys to the future US oligarchy.

[crazy canuck]

And it gets worse.  At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.

[Valmy]

And it gets worse.  At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.

Well right. Eight years ago I would have been like "look at all the crazy shit he is doing people! Return to sanity!"

But...well...the insanity is the point.

[crazy canuck]

And it gets worse.  At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.

Well right. Eight years ago I would have been like "look at all the crazy shit he is doing people! Return to sanity!"

But...well...the insanity is the point.

Yep

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And it gets worse.  At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.

Thunderous applause, how democracy dies this is.

[celedhring]

One of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?

It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.

I'm reading they weren't allowed to let American citizens trade in it. Watch for the feds! 

[HVC]

One of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?

It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.

I'm reading they weren't allowed to let American citizens trade in it. Watch for the feds! 

Dguller going down

[DGuller]

I wasn't trading, I was just watching the price.  My imagination is not sick enough to understand US voters.