Brainfade Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/#ixzz2BZIeH62w In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack ObamaÃÔ campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney and Obama. So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, ObamaÃÔ top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. Ÿe were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker, explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at ParkerÃÔ West Village brownstone. (MORE: Four More Years: Obama Wins Re-election) For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. Ÿe are going to measure every single thing in this campaign, he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official ÅÄhief scientist for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions. Exactly what that team of dozens of data crunchers was doing, however, was a closely held secret. ŵhey are our nuclear codes, campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt would say when asked about the efforts. Around the office, data-mining experiments were given mysterious code names such as Narwhal and Dreamcatcher. The team even worked at a remove from the rest of the campaign staff, setting up shop in a windowless room at the north end of the vast headquarters office. The ÅÔcientists created regular briefings on their work for the President and top aides in the White HouseÃÔ Roosevelt Room, but public details were in short supply as the campaign guarded what it believed to be its biggest institutional advantage over Mitt RomneyÃÔ campaign: its data. On Nov. 4, a group of senior campaign advisers agreed to describe their cutting-edge efforts with TIME on the condition that they not be named and that the information not be published until after the winner was declared. What they revealed as they pulled back the curtain was a massive data effort that helped Obama raise $1 billion, remade the process of targeting TV ads and created detailed models of swing-state voters that could be used to increase the effectiveness of everything from phone calls and door knocks to direct mailings and social media. (Election 2012: Photos From the Finish Line) How to Raise $1 Billion For all the praise ObamaÃÔ team won in 2008 for its high-tech wizardry, its success masked a huge weakness: too many databases. Back then, volunteers making phone calls through the Obama website were working off lists that differed from the lists used by callers in the campaign office. Get-out-the-vote lists were never reconciled with fundraising lists. It was like the FBI and the CIA before 9/11: the two camps never shared data. Ÿe analyzed very early that the problem in Democratic politics was you had databases all over the place, said one of the officials. ůone of them talked to each other. So over the first 18 months, the campaign started over, creating a single massive system that could merge the information collected from pollsters, fundraisers, field workers and consumer databases as well as social-media and mobile contacts with the main Democratic voter files in the swing states. The new megafile didnÃÕ just tell the campaign how to find voters and get their attention; it also allowed the number crunchers to run tests predicting which types of people would be persuaded by certain kinds of appeals. Call lists in field offices, for instance, didnÃÕ just list names and numbers; they also ranked names in order of their persuadability, with the campaignÃÔ most important priorities first. About 75% of the determining factors were basics like age, sex, race, neighborhood and voting record. Consumer data about voters helped round out the picture. Ÿe could [predict] people who were going to give online. We could model people who were going to give through mail. We could model volunteers, said one of the senior advisers about the predictive profiles built by the data. Ūn the end, modeling became something way bigger for us in ?2 than in ?8 because it made our time more efficient. Early on, for example, the campaign discovered that people who had unsubscribed from the 2008 campaign e-mail lists were top targets, among the easiest to pull back into the fold with some personal attention. The strategists fashioned tests for specific demographic groups, trying out message scripts that they could then apply. They tested how much better a call from a local volunteer would do than a call from a volunteer from a nonËÔwing state like California. As Messina had promised, assumptions were rarely left in place without numbers to back them up. MORE: TIME Staff: Live Twitter Reactions The new megafile also allowed the campaign to raise more money than it once thought possible. Until August, everyone in the Obama orbit had protested loudly that the campaign would not be able to reach the mythical $1 billion fundraising goal. Ÿe had big fights because we wouldnÃÕ even accept a goal in the 900s, said one of the senior officials who was intimately involved in the process. Å¢nd then the Internet exploded over the summer, said another. A large portion of the cash raised online came through an intricate, metric-driven e-mail campaign in which dozens of fundraising appeals went out each day. Here again, data collection and analysis were paramount. Many of the e-mails sent to supporters were just tests, with different subject lines, senders and messages. Inside the campaign, there were office pools on which combination would raise the most money, and often the pools got it wrong. Michelle ObamaÃÔ e-mails performed best in the spring, and at times, campaign boss Messina performed better than Vice President Joe Biden. In many cases, the top performers raised 10 times as much money for the campaign as the underperformers. Chicago discovered that people who signed up for the campaignÃÔ Quick Donate program, which allowed repeat giving online or via text message without having to re-enter credit-card information, gave about four times as much as other donors. So the program was expanded and incentivized. By the end of October, Quick Donate had become a big part of the campaignÃÔ messaging to supporters, and first-time donors were offered a free bumper sticker to sign up. (PHOTOS: Election 2012: Photos from the Finish Line) Predicting Turnout The magic tricks that opened wallets were then repurposed to turn out votes. The analytics team used four streams of polling data to build a detailed picture of voters in key states. In the past month, said one official, the analytics team had polling data from about 29,000 people in Ohio alone a whopping sample that composed nearly half of 1% of all voters there allowing for deep dives into exactly where each demographic and regional group was trending at any given moment. This was a huge advantage: when polls started to slip after the first debate, they could check to see which voters were changing sides and which were not. It was this database that helped steady campaign aides in OctoberÃÔ choppy waters, assuring them that most of the Ohioans in motion were not Obama backers but likely Romney supporters whom Romney had lost because of his September blunders. Ÿe were much calmer than others, said one of the officials. The polling and voter-contact data were processed and reprocessed nightly to account for every imaginable scenario. Ÿe ran the election 66,000 times every night, said a senior official, describing the computer simulations the campaign ran to figure out ObamaÃÔ odds of winning each swing state. Å¢nd every morning we got the spit-out here are your chances of winning these states. And that is how we allocated resources. Online, the get-out-the-vote effort continued with a first-ever attempt at using Facebook on a mass scale to replicate the door-knocking efforts of field organizers. In the final weeks of the campaign, people who had downloaded an app were sent messages with pictures of their friends in swing states. They were told to click a button to automatically urge those targeted voters to take certain actions, such as registering to vote, voting early or getting to the polls. The campaign found that roughly 1 in 5 people contacted by a Facebook pal acted on the request, in large part because the message came from someone they knew. (MORE: Why the Importance of Early Voting Is Here to Stay) Data helped drive the campaignÃÔ ad buying too. Rather than rely on outside media consultants to decide where ads should run, Messina based his purchases on the massive internal data sets. Ÿe were able to put our target voters through some really complicated modeling, to say, O.K., if Miami-Dade women under 35 are the targets, [here is] how to reach them, said one official. As a result, the campaign bought ads to air during unconventional programming, like Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead and DonÃÕ Trust the B? in Apt. 23, skirting the traditional route of buying ads next to local news programming. How much more efficient was the Obama campaign of 2012 than 2008 at ad buying? Chicago has a number for that: Å°n TV we were able to buy 14% more efficiently to make sure we were talking to our persuadable voters, the same official said. The numbers also led the campaign to escort their man down roads not usually taken in the late stages of a presidential campaign. In August, Obama decided to answer questions on the social news website Reddit, which many of the PresidentÃÔ senior aides did not know about. Ÿhy did we put Barack Obama on Reddit? an official asked rhetorically. Å£ecause a whole bunch of our turnout targets were on Reddit. That data-driven decisionmaking played a huge role in creating a second term for the 44th President and will be one of the more closely studied elements of the 2012 cycle. ItÃÔ another sign that the role of the campaign pros in Washington who make decisions on hunches and experience is rapidly dwindling, being replaced by the work of quants and computer coders who can crack massive data sets for insight. As one official put it, the time of ÅÈuys sitting in a back room smoking cigars, saying øe always buy 60 MinutesÃô is over. In politics, the era of big data has arrived. PHOTOS: Last Days on the Road with Obama Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/#ixzz2BZIMiyLe
Clarke Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Math & Science work better in the long term, whether it comes to policy or winning elections.
Brainfade Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 Math & Science work better in the long term' date=' whether it comes to policy or winning elections.[/quote'] Which is why I am ecstatic that Prop 37 was defeated in California. Science prevails.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I think there is a penchant to glorify all the means now that Obama has been successful CA :winky: Probably the best reason came from my buddy who hails from Ohio, and his family still lives there. As per him, his Grandmother hates Obama, absolutely detests him and yet voted for him because Romney would cut Medicare. Simple as that. Considering Ohio went Obama way by a percentage point you can judge the impact. I have mentioned this before but I see US going the Indian direction where the people are simply being ghettosized (East/West vs South, urban vs Rural, White vs Minority, yuppies vs old etc) and voters becoming increasingly selfish.
Brainfade Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 ^ Labels are unscientific ? There is no (real) science that shows that GMOs are harmful. Thus, no point in labeling GMOs, other than as a scare tactic. Discussed here a million times. Not going there again. But, check this out: http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/10/29/food-labeling/
Brainfade Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 I think there is a penchant to glorify all the means now that Obama has been successful CA :winky: Probably the best reason came from my buddy who hails from Ohio, and his family still lives there. As per him, his Grandmother hates Obama, absolutely detests him and yet voted for him because Romney would cut Medicare. Simple as that. Considering Ohio went Obama way by a percentage point you can judge the impact. I have mentioned this before but I see US going the Indian direction where the people are simply being ghettosized (East/West vs South, urban vs Rural, White vs Minority, yuppies vs old etc) and voters becoming increasingly selfish. I didn't want to go there on this day of celebration, but since you brought it up :-) .... here are some poignant quotes attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. We're not sure if he himself actually said/wrote them, but they are worth reading nontheless. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy ... The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. More to your point - I have wondered about a few other things: OH and WI have fiscally conservative Governors; heck, WI brought Walker back in a landslide. But, both states went blue in the Presidential. I have heard a couple of explanations: (1) The youth/Hispanic/women vote: that these demographics just don't bother voting in the gubernatorials. Even if they were on the same ballot paper (like in NC), they just fill in the Presidential one and leave. Counting rhe number of votes cast would give an answer, but I am too lazy to look it up. (2) Folks prefer federal govt that keeps on giving, but a governor who can manage that (and state revenues) effectively. Any thoughts? Finally, back to the OP - credit where credit's due. His campaigns have been cutting-edge. He knows where the soft spots are and goes hard at them. Hats off.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (1) The youth/Hispanic/women vote: that these demographics just don't bother voting in the gubernatorials. Even if they were on the same ballot paper (like in NC), they just fill in the Presidential one and leave. Counting rhe number of votes cast would give an answer, but I am too lazy to look it up. That is a fairly valid point considering how that voting block (did we not hear the term in India, another reason why US is perhaps going India route but I digress), typically does not sympathize with Conservatives. And why would they? Conservatives tend to antagonize these groups. So if they dont show up in Gubernatorial race but do show up in Presidential, there will certainly be a different result in each of them. (2) Folks prefer federal govt that keeps on giving, but a governor who can manage that (and state revenues) effectively. This I am not so sure. The support for Democrats, and Obama, can not be rolled down to simple top down freebies. There is lot more to this. As an example how Ohio elderly voted against Romney for Medicare. I would argue that was a much bigger difference maker.
Desi Cartman Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Since he won, now everything he did will be considered as an epic move. Im sure all republicans ran their own numbers and when you consider that FL and VA were so close that Obama just won. Mitt lost because he just couldnt explain why he didnt support auto bailout and on social issues. Plain and simple.
Clarke Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There is no (real) science that shows that GMOs are harmful. Thus, no point in labeling GMOs, other than as a scare tactic. Discussed here a million times. Not going there again. But, check this out: http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/10/29/food-labeling/ Who's discussing what's good or bad ? If you wanna swear your allegiance to Monsanto till death, feel free to do so. All the petition allowed for was allowing the customers a choice wherein they could pick an expensive alternative. The fact that some of you are against choice speaks volumes about vested interests driving the industry.
Desi Cartman Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 And why not stop labeling organic fruits and vegetables? whats the point of doing that ?
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 California people are nuts. Prop this, that and other. You have an entire industry which does nothing but props, pun intentional. Good thing I dont live there....:yay:
Desi Cartman Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 California people are nuts. Prop this, that and other. You have an entire industry which does nothing but props, pun intentional. Good thing I dont live there....:yay: Lol and you vote for Republicans :hysterical:
Nova Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I suspect the labeling of GMO food will lead to reduced sales of such products due to public hysteria. There is no scientific evidence that genetic modification is harmful. Then why should it be labelled separately? Organic food has a positive connotation and this helps the food industry to increase their sales. There is no evidence that organic food is more healthy, but it comes down to politics and money. Labeling of GMO = reduced sales = opposition from food industry. Labeling of organic food = niche market and more money = support by food industry. If I would have asked to vote on Prop 37, I would have voted NO, as science does not tell me that it is bad for health. Hence no need for separate labels.
Nova Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Oh forgot to add that the data mining article was interesting. Thanks for sharing, Big boys, big money, big technology.
Clarke Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I think there is a penchant to glorify all the means now that Obama has been successful CA :winky: The utilization of extensive data mining & technology in general was brought up before the election results: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html The job listing caught the attention of Alex Lundry, a Republican data-mining expert at TargetPoint Consulting. He tweeted a link to the ad, commenting, "The Obama campaign is taking #bigdata seriously; what about the GOP candidates?" The question almost answers itself. So far in the presidential election of 2012, there is only one campaign that is doing cutting-edge work with data.
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Lol and you vote for Republicans :hysterical: :hmmmm2: :hmmmm2: :hmmmm2:
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 The utilization of extensive data mining & technology in general was brought up before the election results: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/tech/innovation/obama-data-crunching-election/index.html Not being dismissive of data mining technology at all. In fact thats right up my alley (professionally speaking), just that now that Obama has won everyone on Obama's side is a Rockstar now.
Desi Cartman Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 :hmmmm2: :hmmmm2: :hmmmm2: arey Arizona voted for Mitt :((
Prakat Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 A mathematically efficient campaign as far as reaching out to voters is concerned. If you get the same number of votes nationally as your opponent yet pull way ahead in electoral college wins, it suggests that the right amount of people were converted in each county. Mitt's numbers came from landslides in known republican pockets but that still counts for one when the ec results are tallied. No doubt a savvier campaign by Obama.
Recommended Posts