You think TLP stuff is newsworthy? It's repackaging of already known information.
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
But are you not not worried about the sLipPerY SlOpe
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.These are my repeated rebuttals to the claims of yourself and others. Others have posted arguments of similar effect. It's maddening that you have hand-waved and refused to offer counter-point by only choosing to engage with low effort arguments. I'm not sure how else to take your contention.
But are they even needed to not elect Trump?First of all, I'm not white. Second of all their message has been not to elect Trump and hasn't been to elect other Republicans. Unless that changes I'm not gonna stand in their way.
Who knows?
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.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...
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.
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.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.
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/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 new paper by two California political scientists finds that the total effect of [ads, phone banks, direct mail, and canvassing] is zero, meaning that they have no impact on how voters vote. David Broockman, a Stanford University assistant professor, and Joshua Kalla, a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, analyzed data from 49 field experiments—state, local, and federal campaigns that let political scientists access their data to evaluate their methods. For every flyer stuck in a mailbox, every door knocked by an earnest volunteer, and every candidate message left on an answering machine, there was no measurable change in voting outcomes.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Maybe folks around here can finally stop celebrating their ads so much. It's kinda gross.
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.
Broockman and Kalla also estimated that the effect of television and online ads is zero, although only a small portion of their data speaks directly to that point.
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.eduTargeted 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 reachingacademic.oup.comThe 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.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.
Presidential elections provide both an important context in which to study advertising and a setting that mitigates the challenges of dynamics and endogeneity. We use the 2000 and 2004 general elections to analyze the effect of market-level advertising on county-level vote shares. The results indicate significant positive effects of advertising exposures. Both instrumental variables and fixed effects alter the ad coefficient. Advertising elasticities are smaller than are typical for branded goods yet significant enough to shift election outcomes. For example, if advertising were set to zero and all other factors held constant, three states' electoral votes would have changed parties in 2000. Given the narrow margin of victory in 2000, this shift would have resulted in a different president.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
This is just going in endless circles and I don't know how much more energy I can muster for it.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.
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.
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.
It's a boogeyman argument to raise the stakes to a sufficient level to scare people into condemning the ads.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.
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.
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.
It's called lobbying and it's not some hypothetical.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.
Yes and no.