Nate Silver is a prime example of this thing that happens a lot with technical people. They get good at describing what is and then they start to think they understand “why”. Sometimes a good understanding can lead you to the why of a situation, but often you need actual experts to analyze the data you’ve collected.
The whole thing about the way his methods work is based on not actually understanding the interactions of the inputs he’s selected.
His book was interesting, but I wouldn’t trust his analysis too much.
Idk, I think his analysis is generally pretty measured, and I find myself appreciating his takes even when I don’t agree with them. In this post, the point he makes is that memes are fleeting, and so a campaign has to keep coming up with viral memes if they want to rely on them for the long haul. That’s easier said than done.The other point he makes is that the “long haul” in this case is not particularly long, and so it would be much easier for Harris to meme her way to victory in this race.
I think that what he’s missing is that memes and sound bites, which are more ephemeral, can be turned into slogans and themes that have staying power. “Weird” is a good candidate because it’s short and simple, and it applies to not just one point-in-time event, but the entire GOP platform, and them as people.
right, but will it sound corny when they’re still saying it in October? How does it sound to a swing voter? The power of these memes and slogans seems to be in energizing the base, which is important but you need more than the base to win.
Swing voters are an outdated concept that mostly don’t exist anymore due to how polarized the party platforms are now. People are mostly aligned with a given party, but whether they take the time to bother to vote is the question. What determines races is getting your base to turn out in sufficient numbers, not pulling from another camp.
The important thing *is* keeping your base energized.
Nate Silver is a prime example of this thing that happens a lot with technical people. They get good at describing what is and then they start to think they understand “why”. Sometimes a good understanding can lead you to the why of a situation, but often you need actual experts to analyze the data you’ve collected.
The whole thing about the way his methods work is based on not actually understanding the interactions of the inputs he’s selected.
His book was interesting, but I wouldn’t trust his analysis too much.
Idk, I think his analysis is generally pretty measured, and I find myself appreciating his takes even when I don’t agree with them. In this post, the point he makes is that memes are fleeting, and so a campaign has to keep coming up with viral memes if they want to rely on them for the long haul. That’s easier said than done.The other point he makes is that the “long haul” in this case is not particularly long, and so it would be much easier for Harris to meme her way to victory in this race.
I think that what he’s missing is that memes and sound bites, which are more ephemeral, can be turned into slogans and themes that have staying power. “Weird” is a good candidate because it’s short and simple, and it applies to not just one point-in-time event, but the entire GOP platform, and them as people.
right, but will it sound corny when they’re still saying it in October? How does it sound to a swing voter? The power of these memes and slogans seems to be in energizing the base, which is important but you need more than the base to win.
Wtf is a swing voter? Tea party eliminated most of the moderates many many years ago, and Trump’s campaign executed the rest.
Swing voters are an outdated concept that mostly don’t exist anymore due to how polarized the party platforms are now. People are mostly aligned with a given party, but whether they take the time to bother to vote is the question. What determines races is getting your base to turn out in sufficient numbers, not pulling from another camp.
The important thing *is* keeping your base energized.