You think TLP stuff is newsworthy? It's repackaging of already known information.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Racist, Homophobic, Sexist pasts of the Lincoln Project Founders "resurface" (Note: It was always there.)
- Thread starter Hours Left
- Start date
You think TLP stuff is newsworthy? It's repackaging of already known information.
How about you tell me how you're determining that given you have taken the contrarian position to perhaps every single news outlet that reports US political news. It's not my onus to convince you of the obvious.
Well, I don't think a bunch of bigots bashing Trump for easy clout is newsworthy no. I don't think it's worthy in any sense actually.
And I think the US political media fucks up all the time and platforms people they absolutely should not who are just looking to influence peddle for not benefit. Richard Spencer, Andy Ngo, Milo, etc
We're likely just going to disagree, but a group of Republicans raising millions to attack Trump and directly support Biden, drawing ire of the president, and forcing his campaign to waste money because they hurt his feelings is about as newsworthy as it gets. The examples you list are exponentially less so.
Going to force myself to sleep now but will gladly respond in the AM if you have further counter-point.
A broken clock is right twice a day and thats all this has been, they are aligned with Centrists and Left wing, so for now we agree and accept the uneasy truce whilst we fight the far right. I thought it was obvious they still would hold shitty opinions.
I'm good with them fucking off and dying after the election, but for now I'll take the "enemy of my enemy" benefits these clowns are providing.
First, there's no evidence that TLP ads are making an impact on voters. Historical polling suggests that political ads have basically no effect on elections.
Second, your assertion that TLP wants to shift the Republican Party left is actually crazy to me. You say it's better TLP than Tucker Carlson, but there's actually no difference. It's the same shit. Show me anything in the platform of TLP people that is meaningfully different than what Trump or any of his ilk believe. (Spoiler: there isn't.) The only difference is that they don't like to look like idiots, and feel like Trump is making Our Great Nation™ a laughingstock.
I don't think you are saying anything different than what anyone else is saying. At least you're saying a little bit more than "let them fight" but I still don't think there is really any evidence to back up your ideas.
And let's just go with the assumption that what you're saying is true for a moment: TLP is trying to suppress "centrist Republican" voter turnout. Okay, great. What's the benefit of sharing their content here? All the centrist Rs of ResetEra are gonna be swayed? Oh, wait...
Who knows?
If their messages are primarily targeting swing voters that lean Republican, it may tilt some votes to Biden or slightly depress Republican turnout.
All I can say is that the Lincoln Project is pretty savvy. They are all over social media.
I think social media works a little bit differently with ads, because, the videos are being shared by friends and family so you take more of it in. Anecdotal but most, if not all of the people that I know that seem to have no problem with Trump are getting their impressions of him, and their impressions on Biden, from Facebook mostly.
I just had a random encounter with my Step-dads Ex and she at first swore she doesn't pick a side, blah blah blah all politicians are bad, and then she said she gets her news on facebook and started talking about Hunter Biden and how Joe has dementia.
Anyway, my point is, these videos are meant to be the kind that are shared on social media. Whether it has much of an impact we really can't say, but they are exactly the flashy kind of videos that get the attention of people that are browsing facebook and want to pretend they are informed while also being entertained.
Obviously they don't have much effect on people that already know how they feel about politics and are looking for policy, but it's red meat for those that like to pretend they are in the middle and are informed so they can throw out an interesting fact in conversation.
For the people who are critical of TLP and fear that they are going to rehabilitate the GOP's image, what do you want? Era has banned threads for the ads themselves, and this thread isn't supporting them with that title. We're doing a good job keeping the fact that TLP are just different-flavored assholes in the forefront of the conversation.
So what are you arguing for?
So what are you arguing for?
Can you please back this up? Why would any politicial party be spending any money on any political ads if this were true. This seems ridiculous.
Ads absolutely may not shift peoples political opinions on a scale, but I would myself even be lying if I said I have never seen an attack advertisement about something that I hadn't known about that led me to research further.
And I'd also be very curious if any of that "polling" is taking the internet age into account. Are you implying fake news Facebook ads in the 2016 campaign had no effect? Because I'm pretty sure it's been proven overwhelmingly the opposite.
A high-profile group of Republicans making a sustained campaign against Trump with popular ads, and then getting called out by Colbert's crew is completely newsworthy.
I still get pissed thinking about the ads showing white families basically sobbing because the devil Hillary called them deplorable. "I'm a hard worker just trying to raise my family, here are my two sad looking kids, but sure, we're DEPLORABLE!" sigh.
I don't think most people would admit it's ads that make up their minds, they would rather say they formed their own opinions, but yeah, I do think they can leave a lasting impression and be influential if they hit you in the right way.
There's quite a bit out there that's easy to find, but I think this is a pretty good article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/campaigns-direct-mail-zero-effect/541485/
This has been studied for decades and as far as I can tell over time, even with new technology and the internet, the conclusions are pretty close to the same.
Yeah, it's watching a repeat of Jimmy Carter's presidency (where he lost a ton of control of the party).
As to the post above, I'm also unclear on what people want. I think it's fairly clear these guys are newsworthy, and so people are gonna talk about them. They're going to comment on which ads might have what effect.
It's very obvious to me ERA is about split on this issue and neither side is going to agree. I'll keep cheering TLP on until the election because I'll take any help we can get to win the Senate. I can understand the viewpoint of never taking help from bigots, but, right now I just can't care and that's that.
Do you think Trump's case could be unique in how much T.V. he watches, and how easily he is triggered by what he watches? Might not affect the election in the direct way intended, but unhinged Trump press conferences do hurt him, or at least keep his ceiling low.
Call em out, I guess. Besides drive-by "enemy of my enemy" posts, I don't see anyone who's unaware of who TLP really is.
I don't celebrate the ads but as I said, I'm delighted at the infighting and want it to continue. If that's gross, then I'm gross.
The article you're quoting is referencing to the ability for a political ad to change someone's political affiliation, I imagine (since I can't find the paper) It has nothing to do with how that still changes someone's voting patterns, tendencies, if they actually go out, etc. The article itself uses very loose terminology, I think on purpose. I've written these types of papers before.
If you really don't think that campaigns have their own research companies, peer-reviewed and statistical data on a billion-dollar industry, again, seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Then again, I also can just quote you some articles directly contradicting this one paper purporting this claim. See below.
Hell, you don't even need to look at 2016. There are papers on the effectiveness of the HOPE ads for the Obama campaign, dozens of highly publicized political events and popular ads in our nation (and international) history, the effectiveness of propaganda, etc.
Can you contest this or the thousands of other sources of data to the contrary?
Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections
Targeted Facebook ads shown to be highly effective in the 2016 US Presidential election
Intensive, micro-targeted Facebook adverts increased Republican turnout by up to 10 per cent among key voter groups, according to a new study. The study raises important questions about whether more regulation or transparency is needed. The paper was produced in collaboration with ETH Zurich and...
www.sciencedaily.com
some older ones:
QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY IN TELEVISED POLITICAL ADS
Abstract. Political candidates have relied increasingly on television advertising over the past decade, with expenditures by major office-seekers reaching
academic.oup.com
The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertising: A Case Study - Document - Gale Academic OneFile
includes The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertising: A Case Study by BRENDA S. SONNER. Read the beginning or sign in for the full text.
go.gale.com
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
Almost every paper cites a change in voting tendencies, opinions, but not outright change in political ideologies, like I had mentioned before. As you mentioned, this has been studied "for decades". But campaigns are still putting billions into it. So I ask you as a critical thinker, do you think the article you posted is an accurate representation of how advertising works on a voting populace.
that's another good point. For a lot of people in America, voting requires effort, like standing in a line, maybe for an hour or more, possibly on a work day. Just because ads don't make a person change their party doesn't mean they can't effect whether or not they decide to make an effort to vote or not. Piss them off or excite them in the right way, they just might where they may have stayed at home otherwise. The opposite is also true where ads like TLP may discourage possible R voters and they may just stay at home that day.The article you're quoting is referencing to the ability for a political ad to change someone's political affiliation, I imagine (since I can't find the paper) It has nothing to do with how that still changes someone's voting patterns, tendencies, if they actually go out, etc. The article itself uses very loose terminology, I think on purpose. I've written these types of papers before.
If you really don't think that campaigns have their own research companies, peer-reviewed and statistical data on a billion-dollar industry, again, seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Then again, I also can just quote you some articles directly contradicting this one paper purporting this claim. See below.
Hell, you don't even need to look at 2016. There are papers on the effectiveness of the HOPE ads for the Obama campaign, dozens of highly publicized political events and popular ads in our nation (and international) history, the effectiveness of propaganda, etc.
Can you contest this or the thousands of other sources of data to the contrary?
Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections
www.gsb.stanford.edu
Targeted Facebook ads shown to be highly effective in the 2016 US Presidential election
Intensive, micro-targeted Facebook adverts increased Republican turnout by up to 10 per cent among key voter groups, according to a new study. The study raises important questions about whether more regulation or transparency is needed. The paper was produced in collaboration with ETH Zurich and...www.sciencedaily.com
some older ones:
QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY IN TELEVISED POLITICAL ADS
Abstract. Political candidates have relied increasingly on television advertising over the past decade, with expenditures by major office-seekers reachingThe Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertising: A Case Study - Document - Gale Academic OneFile
includes The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertising: A Case Study by BRENDA S. SONNER. Read the beginning or sign in for the full text.go.gale.comSAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
Almost every paper cites a change in voting tendencies, opinions, but not outright change in political ideologies, like I had mentioned before. As you mentioned, this has been studied "for decades". But campaigns are still putting billions into it. So I ask you as a critical thinker, do you think the article you posted is an accurate representation of how advertising works on a voting populace.
After opening my mind a bit looking into it further, I've gotta say that while I still don't have a major issue with the ads, I do appreciate the opposing position a bit more and encourage folks to stay informed and to inform others about what these guys are about no matter how you feel about their ads. I don't think these guys will be shaping biden policy and I already knew what they were about, but that said, we don't need goofballs on msnbc and other major news sources to prop them up incessantly and talk about how they've donated to them and such when they're partially responsible for what led us here.
For sure, just even look at this one quote from an article I posted above, a study on the 2000 and 2004 elections, where if advertising had been set to sum zero, three states electoral votes would have gone to another candidate. That's a huge shift.
I don't know, I might be wrong. I was speaking in terms of what I'd heard before. I'd have to look at the other sources you cite to learn more. Regardless, it's not a central point of my argument against TLP.
Side note though, I don't think it's fair to assume that swaying voting patterns is the only reason that a campaign would spend money on political advertising. There is a lot of value in advertising in terms of just building mind share or recognition.
And if I'm wrong about political advertising having little effect on voting, if it's actually a large effect, then we should be even more wary of TLP and granting them influence.
👍 Good on ya.
Ok so let's talk about your last point. In your mind, if it does have a large effect, it won't be worth taking the Senate because of some hypothetical where TLP people gain some kind of influence in the future? You'd take turtle being able to shut everything down for 4 years over making any progress at all just so those few gentlemen don't become influential?
I know that's not what you are saying but it comes across that way. The thing for me is, once 2020 is over, and I honestly think I can speak for most here, we won't give two shits about TLP or the people involved. We won't be parading them ah hereos. The media might sure, but the media is going to media.
Absolutely, I think there are arguments on both ends of the spectrum (advertising/non) that are valid, and the data that the paper you referenced is still very valuable. There must definitely be a tipping point as well, where advertising becomes ineffective. It supports arguments for more focused, analytical and targeted spending of advertising money/campaign and political focus, and the ineffectiveness of more "traditional" methods.
There's also your real points about the TLP, which I purposely tried to avoid in talking about overall effectiveness of political advertising, because I also think its an important discussion to have. I agree somewhat for sure and it makes me uneasy as well, as we've seen with the proliferation of extremism on the internet and also the effectiveness of de-platforming, that signal-boosting an org like them who are in the background supporting very awful things, while the goal of the advertising in this instance happens to be "right", on the other hand, could have in itself negative effects and consequences, and could even have contradictory effects on the advertising itself (if there's a correlation between WHO is advertising what, not to whom, and what effect that could have on the voters it does potentially reach). Or worse.
I hope my response didn't come off as overly aggressive btw and thanks for the response and article (hadn't read it until just then), only meant to respectfully rebut.
Last edited:
This is just going in endless circles and I don't know how much more energy I can muster for it.
The argument is that TLP is helping to oust Trump and win back Congress. I don't believe they will have any appreciable effect on either thing. I don't think either side can honestly prove it either way, which is annoying.
If you gave me hard data that said all other things being equal, without TLP's ads and viral content, Trump would win and Republicans would retain control in Congress, then sure, let's just let the weasley fuckers do their thing for now and then let's focus on burning them to the ground the first moment we possibly can.
But I think that is a really, really, really hard-line assumption to make without the data to back it up. And people are playing the game of "every little bit helps" while I just don't see how that bears out in reality. There are tons and tons of places we can be focusing our attention and our efforts that are NOT vile pieces of shit like TLP.
I didn't take it as aggressive at all, I appreciate you sharing what you did.
I agree with you, Just know who these guys are and what their aims are. Not sure where this hypothetical that somehow the Lincoln Project is going to get a seat at the Biden table or administration is coming from, I've seen several people talk about this danger.
It's a boogeyman argument to raise the stakes to a sufficient level to scare people into condemning the ads.
Discouraging GOP voters is precisely the strategy of these ads (beyond pissing off Trump). The ads themselves aren't great for most of us, because they use jargon and imagery that the GOP has banked on for years. It's one of the reasons they are noteworthy. They intend to sow doubt. Like Clinton suffered from in 2016, they are hoping that doubt and lower enthusiasm depress turnout. That one suburbanite that didn't really like Trump but could put up with him for the policy or for the sake of stopping Clinton-- that's the target of these ads. Make Trump less palatable, make Biden seem not so bad. Make them not even willing to "hold their nose and vote."
100%.
I don't share these ads but when they come up in conversation, I do remind people of who they are (generally people already know).
Oh, I don't think any of us think are mistaking the Lincoln Project people as "good guys". They just basically want to get rid of Trump so they can turn around and continue to put guys like Pence in office.
That said, Trumps ejection from elected office is pretty much an all compassing quest right now for most, and even a bog-standard GOP jackass would be a vast improvement over Trump, so for now "the enemy of my enemy" thing applies.
That said, Trumps ejection from elected office is pretty much an all compassing quest right now for most, and even a bog-standard GOP jackass would be a vast improvement over Trump, so for now "the enemy of my enemy" thing applies.
It's called lobbying and it's not some hypothetical.
Add to that, many of the democratic billionaires donating to TLP are also the same donating to Biden.
Unless you believe for some reason the ads TLP buys work on people but the lobbying has no effect on politicians. If it didn't work we wouldn't see ridiculous amounts of money being spent on lobbying each and every year. I think to just dismiss out of hand that these things can affect politicians and policy is somewhat naive.
Yes and no.
Dems are not good at attack ads like these.
I mean, TLP's ads get more hits than any democratic ads against Trump. They know their market vert well. And they know how to exploit it.