Big data — defined by Todd and Dann as a “combination of massive technological power and endlessly detailed voter information” — has certainly changed the way campaigns are conducted. Like corporations, campaigns now know far more about their constituents than ever before — what they read, which movies they stream, which shows they watch, where they shop, which products they buy.
This allows campaigns to identify their most likely voters and target them with ads and favorable content. The result, increasingly, is that candidates talk only to voters disposed to agree with them, as opposed to persuading those who don’t.
In the end, Todd and Dann write, mobilizing likely supporters is “faster and far less expensive than persuading their neighbors.” So that’s what campaigns do: ignore the center and concentrate on the most fervent supporters. [...]
Think of the famous Romney 47 percent line or Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" comment. Both of these statements are forms of representation where you dismiss the people who are not your supporters. When I think of my job as a politician, I can think of it as serving the entire population, or I can think of it as serving my people, my voters. So I'm looking for 51 percent, not 60 or 70 percent.
Big data makes it easy for candidates to dismiss their opponents. They now know, with greater and greater precision, how people voted and how they're likely to vote in the future, and their campaigns reflect that.
No comments:
Post a Comment