Brexit....or in.

There must be more to life than football?

Which way would you vote

Remain and voted remain the first time
8
73%
Leave and voted leave the first time
2
18%
Remain but voted leave the first time
0
No votes
Leave but voted remain the first time
1
9%
Can't be arsed
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:40 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pm
You mean the bit here?

" In addition, the model identifies the key issues that the voter is interested in and how that aligns with the message from the candidate you want them to vote for, plus the mediums that the person uses. After that, continuous application of adverts on those lines nudge the voter over to your side. The neural network profiling models are complicated, but the theory is not.

So, for example, one set of people will receive Crooked Hillary adverts, another will receive anti immigrant adverts; in the same way that our ads and homepage displays a different car depending on the profile of the customer."

:shrug:

Perhaps rather than assuming I'm being condescending, you might try reading it, eh?
No, that still doesn't answer the actual question? "And focussing on the method dodges the real question, why were so many people susceptible to such advertising in the first place?" So what was going on in the USA for people to believe Crooked Hilary ads, what was going on for people to be persuaded by anti-immigration ads? You're not changing views, just like you're not selling the customer a car that doesn't already appeal to them. And that's why it doesn't change the direction of the vote, you could use a different approach to reaching those voters and yield similar results. Something before the campaign has already entrenched those views.

I can never tell if you're missing the gist of my posts through skim-reading or a desire to manufacture an argument out of nothing. But there's only one way for me to respond when you're basically expanding on the point I made in an obnoxious and confrontational way. :kiss:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:54 am

Image

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:58 pm


User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13746
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:03 pm

There is no plan for no deal - because we're going to get a great deal.

Uh huh.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15330
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:23 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:40 am
mrblackbat wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:30 pm
You mean the bit here?

" In addition, the model identifies the key issues that the voter is interested in and how that aligns with the message from the candidate you want them to vote for, plus the mediums that the person uses. After that, continuous application of adverts on those lines nudge the voter over to your side. The neural network profiling models are complicated, but the theory is not.

So, for example, one set of people will receive Crooked Hillary adverts, another will receive anti immigrant adverts; in the same way that our ads and homepage displays a different car depending on the profile of the customer."

:shrug:

Perhaps rather than assuming I'm being condescending, you might try reading it, eh?
No, that still doesn't answer the actual question? "And focussing on the method dodges the real question, why were so many people susceptible to such advertising in the first place?" So what was going on in the USA for people to believe Crooked Hilary ads, what was going on for people to be persuaded by anti-immigration ads? You're not changing views, just like you're not selling the customer a car that doesn't already appeal to them. And that's why it doesn't change the direction of the vote, you could use a different approach to reaching those voters and yield similar results. Something before the campaign has already entrenched those views.

I can never tell if you're missing the gist of my posts through skim-reading or a desire to manufacture an argument out of nothing. But there's only one way for me to respond when you're basically expanding on the point I made in an obnoxious and confrontational way. :kiss:
Yes, it does answer the question. :shrug: if you can't understand why, and why your argument above is flawed and missing a huge piece of the puzzle, that's your problem. Let me say it again: "After that, continuous application of adverts on those lines nudge the voter over to your side." I can't nudge them over to my side if they were already on my side....

I wasn't being obnoxious ir confrontational at all: you just chose to read it that way and went on the offence as usual. Not my issue.

As to the issues, there are too many issues to account for in this country or the USA. Remember that Trump actually won less votes than Clinton in any case, showing just how effective personal and personalised targeting really is. You couldn't do it through a door knocking campaign: that's far less subtle for a start. But every time you log in to Facebook you see, sometimes subconsciously as you scroll through, an advert specifically tailored to your personal trigger points that either provide affirmation to that aspect of the political entity you're representing, or are inflammatory to your opponent, and it adds up, and ultimately sways that voter to your side: especially when the other side isn't using that technique. Door knocking is a dsr more honest and in your face approach.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:23 pm

I can see I'm not going to get a sensible response out of you. You either plain don't understand what I'm driving at or are trying to be deliberately obfuscating. Everything you say is correct, I'm not disputing any of it despite your petty insistence that I don't understand it. But you're missing the point. Whatever, can't be bothered trying again.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15330
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:52 pm

I can see you aren't going to make an attempt to read any of my responses sensibly. It's all you'vee done on this topic for ages. Perhaps you need to take a look at yourself? :shrug:

You are the one being deliberately obtuse, time and time again. As soon as there is anything you disagree with, instead of actually dealing with the issues you disagree with, that, in my opinion, prove you wrong, you just cry "you aren't understanding". You don't explain why my explanation doesn't answer your question, just state that it doesn't. :shrug:

In reality, I think you know that they do, know that I have a very valid point again, but have backed yourself so hard into a stance that you don't want to lose face.

Please explain: why is my response not sensible? I've demonstrated how you can change an election result by influencing undecided people, tipping those on the edge of the opposition side to you and aiming to ensure that the disenfranchised will vote through the selective use of advertisements that match the profile of that person. How is that "not sensible" in the current discussion?

mcteeth
Ageing international
Posts: 4291
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mcteeth » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:32 pm

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comm ... 57576.html

Poll of polls.

Will of the people etc...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:39 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:52 pm

Please explain: why is my response not sensible? I've demonstrated how you can change an election result by influencing undecided people, tipping those on the edge of the opposition side to you and aiming to ensure that the disenfranchised will vote through the selective use of advertisements that match the profile of that person. How is that "not sensible" in the current discussion?
Because I was asking why the profile you're targeting exists. Explaining the method ad nauseum doesn't in any way address the fact that people need to fit your chosen profile first. In other words, a crooked Hilary ad can only be effective if you know already a significant number are willing to believe Hilary is crooked. And that is what swings an election, not the method in which they are reached.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15330
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:30 pm

Which is largely an irrelevant question. There are always people unhappy with the current government in any democratic system (unless you include Saddam Hussein's 100% turnout 100% vote share elections.... ;) ). The profiles to target are of dissatisfaction with something. It's not like there's one single profile that gets picked on.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:51 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:30 pm
There are always people unhappy with the current government in any democratic system
Exactly. There's the real reason why Trump won, there's the real reason why Leave won. It's why May lost her majority in 2017.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15330
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:41 pm

No, I disagree. Clinton won more votes than Trump, for a start.

Trump won because an advanced campaign of personally targeting the few people that can actually swing a campaign was highly successful. Those that needed to be firmed up onto one side were successfully convinced into action.

And, in my opinion, the same thing happened with Brexit in the UK. Add in the complete claptrap put out by the campaign and there's a whole load of fake issues and promises to bandy about. £350 million a week for the NHS, that sounds good! It'll be EASY to get a deal! We'll definitely stay in the single market though and there will be NO problems; it'll all be plain sailing.... etc.

You don't agree, you've made that clear: and I think that's because you simply don't quite get the sophistication of the campaign style, nor the effect that subtle persuasion can have. :shrug:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:11 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:41 pm
No, I disagree. Clinton won more votes than Trump, for a start.

You disagree with your own words? You've explained in depth that it's just about affecting the margins, the big numbers don't really matter. Now that I've pointed out you've finally said what I've been hoping you'd realise all along, you're changing tact. It doesn't matter who got the most votes overall, that isn't what decides the US presidential election. What counts is if there's sufficient dissatisfied swing voters to change the result. And it isn't how they're reached that makes them dissatisfied, they're targeted because they already are dissatisfied. The method simply wouldn't work if the numbers of dissatisfied people weren't there, the swing vote would go the other way as - shock, horror - the other side spread their own propaganda to try and influence the vote their way. Don't accept that? Take the £350m bus, enough remainers were convinced it was a lie to waste their cash and go to court over it. Do you think people who voted Trump/leave just didn't hear any of the arguments put out by the Clinton/remain side?

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15330
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:31 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:11 am
mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:41 pm
No, I disagree. Clinton won more votes than Trump, for a start.

You disagree with your own words? You've explained in depth that it's just about affecting the margins, the big numbers don't really matter. Now that I've pointed out you've finally said what I've been hoping you'd realise all along, you're changing tact. It doesn't matter who got the most votes overall, that isn't what decides the US presidential election. What counts is if there's sufficient dissatisfied swing voters to change the result. And it isn't how they're reached that makes them dissatisfied, they're targeted because they already are dissatisfied. The method simply wouldn't work if the numbers of dissatisfied people weren't there, the swing vote would go the other way as - shock, horror - the other side spread their own propaganda to try and influence the vote their way. Don't accept that? Take the £350m bus, enough remainers were convinced it was a lie to waste their cash and go to court over it. Do you think people who voted Trump/leave just didn't hear any of the arguments put out by the Clinton/remain side?
No, I disagree with your words interpreting my point. You take it totally differently than it was given. :shrug:

And you remain so arrogant that you can never see that.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27718
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit....or in.

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:40 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:31 pm

No, I disagree with your words interpreting my point. You take it totally differently than it was given. :shrug:

And you remain so arrogant that you can never see that.
I'm the arrogant one? I'm not the one condescendingly lecturing on a point that isn't even disputed whilst avoiding any point raised that doesn't fit your world view. I mean, you can't even concede a point when you admit you haven't read what you're commenting on...

I think targeting swing voters is an efficient and effective way to reach them. But the very nature of the method means it cannot determine the result. Perhaps you don't see that because it's only been highlighted when used to support winning votes. I don't know. You talk about selling someone a car - you think it works because the client bought your car. You don't know if you hadn't targeted them whether they wouldn't have bought the car, they'd have bought a different one that a rival was pushing, or if they'd have bought the same car anyway. You presumably only have limited information when the sale doesn't happen what the client does instead and why. Targeting them adds an efficiency to the process of marketing. But you're only trying to get them to do what you think they already want to. the marketing is focussing on the market, not creating it.

Post Reply