Why #Hillary Won’t Be Getting Our Vote – And No One Else Will, Either

On Wednesday, 7 Jan 2016, I tweeted about some #Hillary campaigners who blew it big time with us.

These were two young people (early 20s, I’d guess). They came to the door, asked for Susan, she wasn’t home, I said that, they said “Thank you”, turned around and walked away.

I said, “That’s it? I’m a guy so my opinion doesn’t matter? My vote doesn’t count?”

The literally shook their heads as if the concept of campaigning to a man was unknown to them, as if they had to shake loose existing ideas to make room for “Man is interested” in their crania.

After a moment’s hesitation and fugue, one said, “Oh, would you like to vote for Hillary Clinton?”

I waved them away, disgusted, shaking my head in disbelief at their lack of training and closed the door.

These people were not prepped and/or trained well, and if they’re what #Hillary is sending around on the eve of the NH Primary, me thinks her camp is in trouble nationally.

But Today (Saturday, 9 Jan 2016)…

A tall, thin, white-haired, mature looking fellow came to our door, #Hillary paraphernalia bedecking his jacket like a tribal chief’s regalia, and asked for Susan.

She was in the living room, sitting on the couch, watching Selma (and if there’s not irony in that, there’s not irony anywhere), and called out “Not interested.”

He took some flyers out of a notebook he was carrying. “Could I leave you these to give to her?”

No, thank you. Not interested.

“Well, then I’ll just leave them in your door,” and he proceeded to ram them into our doorjamb.

I said, “No, please don’t. We’re not interested.”

He looked down at me and said, “I came to see Susan.”

She got up off the couch, walked to the door and said, “We are not interested. I am not interested. You didn’t do what we asked, you belligerent mucus, why should we have any interest in doing what you ask?”

Okay, I edited her response a bit.

But she did close the door in his face. Which was probably lucky for him. This is the woman that horses and other assorted large livestock fear. She doesn’t tolerate much from anything or anybody.

But again, doesn’t anybody train these people on how to negotiate a yes? Or at least leave people with a willingness to talk with a follow-up campaigner walking up the drive?

What we really want to know is…

I also tweeted about a #Trump supporter who didn’t have enough sense to get his nose out of his phone and his body out of the road, running the risk of personal injury and traffic problems.

These folks were merely the latest. What we really want to know is, are the campaigners this year worse than in previous years? It seems so. It definitely seems nobody is training these people properly. Are the stakes that high this year and nobody told us? Or if this is how you go about telling us, is it possible you’re not campaigning for the names on your armbands?

Now that would make sense.

But Back to Susan…

She printed the following out. It’s up on our front door. And I can already hear the doorbell ringing again…


Posted in , , , , ,

Sanity Once More

It’s getting to be a habit, a very welcome habit to my tired eyes and ears. The announcement that the US is not only talking to Iran but has actually joined an international partnership to reach a deal which limits the proliferation of nuclear weapons, is a joy to all who value peace, tact, and diplomacy. The announcement follows on the heels of an opening dialogue with Cuba leading to a partial normalization of relations there, too. The trifecta is complete with the announcement from the Hillary Clinton campaign that all Americans should be automatically registered to vote on attaining the age of eighteen and that she will push for such registration. Other progressive actions seem to be surfacing to the benefit of the citizenry and to the relief of minorities. Although there is a long way to go, such moves are so welcome that sanity is seen to emerge.

Elected representatives quickly forget that all of the accusations levelled at Iran can and should equally be levelled at the US. They say Iran can’t be trusted but the Iranians remember how the US was instrumental in usurping Iran’s democratically elected government and installing the Shah, a terrorist puppet regime, in its place. They say Iran is a sponsor of international terrorism by supplying arms and support to some of Israel’s neighbours. Is the US conscience clear in every Central and South American nation on the same topic? The US considers it appropriate to tap into the communications of nations on every continent. The latest known victims are Brazil and Germany. Republican and Democrat spokemen alike castigate Iran for actions that the US has repeatedly modelled. The good news is that Iran has risen above the US paranoia and their people rejoice in the outcome.

When Israel acts as the aggressor, creates apartheid conditions and destroys homes and infrastructure in Gaza, they are praised in the US as freedom fighters. They receive funding and armaments from the parent source and do not discriminate in how those arms are used. On several occasions the UN security council has condemned Israel as war criminals and for crimes against humanity. Yet those resolutions do not see the light of day because the US exercises its veto. Despite three years of negotiations (culminating in the day old agreement to limit Iranian nukes) there is not a peep about putting the same screws to the Israeli stockpile. The hypocrisy continues. When will Russia, China and the US trust each other enough to really show leadership in nuclear disarmament?

The thawing of relations with Cuba has been dealt with elsewhere but the third item regarding voter registration requires an airing. The governor of Wisconsin recently announced his running for president in the 2016 election. Part of his platform was a boast that his state now requires government issued photo ID in order to vote. By so doing he has effectively cut the voter rolls for those who can’t obtain a government issued photo ID. A Student card is not good enough. Neither is utility bills, shopping cards, and any of the other myriad ways usually accepted as proof of identity. He is not alone in imposing such restrictions. It is a measure of insanity to make voter registration and ID difficult in a democracy. That is why Hillary Clinton’s announcement was so welcome. If enacted it would cut across the voter registration and ID fiasco and bring a standard requirement to all states for every election.


Posted in , , ,

“Predicting Election Outcomes via NextStage’s TargetTrack” or “Why Dean Led, Kerry was Droll and Lieberman Foundered in 2004”


Note: This post was originally published as “An Evolution Technology Prediction Markets Case Study”

Background

NextStage was approached late in September of 2003 by the Lieberman Presidential Campaign camp. At that time, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) was running in the democratic Presidential primaries against a very large field, although the main contenders at the time boiled down to Senator Lieberman, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Howard Dean (ex-governor, D-VT).

The question we were asked was whether or not NextStage’s Evolution Technology™ could help the Lieberman camp improve their standing. The first part of meeting this request involved determining if the Lieberman camp’s current efforts would be successful in the long run, and I won’t keep you in suspense; we determined they would not be successful and history has borne us out.

However, to demonstrate the first and second stage predictive capabilities NextStage’s TargetTrack™ was able to provide [[(as documented in Working with Prediction Markets via NextStage’s Evolution Technology and Reading Virtual Minds Volume 1: Science and History. Readers who’d like the entire NextStage 2004 campaign analysis should contact NextStage directly)]], this case study shows a competitive analysis of similar web pages from the Dean, Kerry and Lieberman websites. These pages evaluated included the Home page, some Issues pages and pages profiling (or “About”) the candidates. The goal was to use Evolution Technology™ to determine which audiences the candidates were targeting and capturing via their online media, and to determine likely outcomes based on the material being used.

The content used was from Monday, 28 Sept 2003. The information presented on the following pages constitutes a summary of Evolution Technology‘s assessment of these website pages and was our opinion. While not a case for why one candidate’s website or candidate his or herself might be outperforming another, the information contained herein was useful for that type of analysis. No suggestions for modifying any sites were contained herein.

Gender Capture

First, we looked at what the targeted demographics for the web content were. The first category, “Gender Capture” shown below, indicates the Percentages of overall gender that the combined web pages targeted (Male v. Female).

Gender Capture Comparison for Lieberman, Kerry and Dean on 28 Sept 03

Lieberman was reaching out to a largely (63%) Male audience. Dean was almost 50/50. None of the candidates were targeting the “Women” voters. What this indicated was that Dean was doing an excellent job of getting his message across to both men and women.

Age Group Capture

Next we evaluated the age groups that would best respond to the web site messages over all web pages combined (shown below).

Age Capture for Lieberman, Kerry and Dean on 28 Sept 03

This chart shows that the material in Lieberman’s site was reaching out to a primarily middle-aged demographic. Kerry had a larger portion of the younger age groups, while Dean had the largest demographic coverage, including a larger part of the “senior citizens” demographic. Ages under 15 are not included in these charts because of their insignificance in the election process.

Based on just these two charts alone, NextStage was able to determine that on 28 Sept 03 Lieberman was going to remain third man if this was the race.

Age Group Comprehension

Thus far we determined that Dean was communicating best of all the candidates’ websites we were analyzing.

However, appealing to the broadest audience means nothing if that audience can’t understand what you’re telling them. Answering that was done by determining which age groups could best comprehend or understand each candidate’s message as presented on their websites.

The chart below shows which age groups would most likely understand and respond to the candidates messages as of 28 Sept 03. Kerry and Lieberman’s content was understandable by a younger age group (lower education level) while Dean’s messages were designed for both a more mature and much broader audience. One way to look at this is that Lieberman’s and Kerry’s messages were stated much more simply than Dean’s.

Which Age Groups could best understand each candidate's messages?

Generally, Comprehension Capture numbers should be close to Age Capture numbers, indicating that the messages are more likely to be hitting their targeted audience. In mass marketing efforts such as politics, however, the goal is to be understood by the largest audience possible and this often means aiming for a lower education requirement on the part of your target. There is a problem in aiming for a lower education requirement, however. Too simple a message can come across as off-putting and patronizing.

Dean’s message, while requiring a higher degree of sophistication to understand, was very well targeted to the age groups he was capturing. This could partially explain his ability as an internet fund-raiser.

Message Strengths

Whether you’re a political candidate or a business promoting a product, unless you can get that message out in a way that makes sense for what you’re selling you’re not getting things done.

All politicians are good orators; it’s part of their job. But the goal is to be good at talking about what’s on the minds of people when you meet them. Lieberman had many strengths but they weren’t strengths people were interested in during the 2003-2004 primary season.

Message Strengths – 1 (below) shows that Lieberman’s strengths were his ability to show (Visual) people Comparisons (his ability as a debater and in confronting issues). Kerry was good at communicating who he was (Identity) and that he has a Process in Place to solve the problems he talks about. Even if he didn’t communicate the process specifically, he was giving the message that he knew what the process was. If you add this to the fact that his messages require the least education to understand (Age Group Comprehension above ), this adds up to a good market penetration.

Liebeman's strengths were his ability to show comparisons. Kerry's strength was that he had a process in place.

Dean was a successful fundraiser because he grabbed the broadest age demographic (Age Group Capture on page ) and had the most even gender capture (Gender Capture above). He was also communicating his ability to provide Order and Structure (as shown in Message Strengths – 2 below) way above the others. This strongly appealed to voters’ economic and national security issues at that time.

Dean's strength was his ability to communicate structure and order to a concerned, anxious nation

Perhaps the final blow to Lieberman in this three horse race was that both Dean and Kerry both were indicating they had a greater ability to move Toward and Upward, which translates as their ability to get the nation to a better place (literally, “higher ground”) as shown in the Message Strengths – 3 chart below.

Both Kerry and Dean were better able to communicate their ability to improve things

Summary

NextStage’s Evolution Technology demonstrated its ability to function as both a stage 1 and stage 2 Prediction Market during the 2003-2004 Democratic Presidential Primaries and again during the 2004 Presidential elections [[ and we continue to do so via our Politics blog]].

The first stage of a true prediction market is to determine what a likely outcome will be. The second stage, and usually the more important stage — is being able to explain why the outcome will be what is predicted and to suggest ways to alter undesired outcomes into desired outcomes.


Posted in , , , , ,

Voting Science


How important is science in the 2012 elections? It gets little mention directly and appears most often as policy statements.

Is it important? Are you reading this post on some ‘net enabled device? Thank science.

Are you reading this post on a mobile or tablet device? Thank science. Does your computer fit in your hand rather than fill a room? Thank science.

Do you get your calls via cellphone more often than landline? Thank science. For that matter, thank science for your landline, too.

You don’t think Science is important?

Science is business. Don’t forget that. And business is economics. Italy is imprisoning six scientists who failed to correctly predict the extent of an earthquake in L’Aquila in 2009. Think of the insurance bills that had to be paid in that city. Italy’s courts have also decided mobile phones cause brain tumors. Think of the medical costs! Think of the caveats mobile phone developers will need to have written into purchase agreements to indemnify them from heretical liability claims!

And in the US? Textbooks are bought and ordered more on what politics are in the largest sales territories. If everybody in a given sales territory thinks Creationism is truer than Evolution, guess what goes in the textbook? Voting with one’s pocketbook is fine but the short-sightedness of that approach is incredible. Vote that way long enough and the US — already losing some of its technological advantage — becomes a scientific backwater relying on other countries for innovation. Lose technological advantage and military strength is not far behind.

And we thought Wikipedia was dangerous?

Who’s for Science? (a view from across the pond)

The following is from the British science journal Nature v490 25 Oct 2012. The full article is High stakes for US science and a worthy read.


In their own words

Barack Obama (blue) and Mitt Romney (red) speak about science issues on the campaign trail.

CLIMATE

Obama: “Climate change is one of the biggest issues… we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits.”

Romney: “I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system …Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection.”

The bottom line: Romney opposes all climate regulations. Obama used regulatory powers to push through energy and climate regulations, and subsidies for low-carbon energy technology.

EDUCATION

Obama: “Now I want to hire another hundred thousand new math and science teachers and create two million more slots in our community colleges so that people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now.”

Romney: “I propose we grade our schools so parents …can take their child to a school that’s being more successful. I don’t want to cut our commitment to education, I want to make it more effective and efficient.”

The bottom line: Obama often emphasizes science education. Romney focuses on streamlining the federal role in education while encouraging school choice and voucher
programmes.

ENERGY

Obama: “I have supported an all-of-the-above energy approach that will allow us to take control of our energy future, one where we safely and responsibly develop America’s many energy resources.”

Romney: “A crucial component of my plan …is to dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020.”

The bottom line: Romney and Obama have tussled over who supports fossil fuels the most. The difference is that Obama continues to push to develop renewable sources for the long
term.

INNOVATION

Obama: “I am committed to doubling funding for key research agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs, so that we can preserve America’s place as the world leader in innovation.”

Romney: “The promotion of innovation will begin on Day One, with efforts to simplify the corporate tax code, reform job retraining programmes, reduce regulatory burdens, and protect American intellectual property.”

The bottom line: Obama deployed stimulus money to commercialize new technologies. Romney supports basic research, but leaves innovation and commercialization to the private
sector.

REGULATION

Obama: “Smart rules can save lives and keep us safe, but there are some regulations that don’t make sense and cost too much.”

Romney: “We must reduce the power of unaccountable regulators by requiring that all major regulations receive congressional approval and by imposing a regulatory cap that prevents the addition of new regulatory costs.”

The bottom line: Romney would slow or stop regulation where possible. Obama moved to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, but also used regulatory powers to further his agenda.

SPACE

Obama: “Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.”

Romney: “America has enjoyed a half-century of leadership in space, but now that leadership is eroding …I will bring together all the stakeholders …and define the pathway forward.”

The bottom line: Under Obama, NASA has drifted into budgetary and mission limbo. Romney has underscored the problem but offers few specifics about what he would change.

STEM CELLS

Obama: “We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.”

Romney: “I have a deep concern about curing disease …but I will not create new embryos through cloning or through embryo farming, because that would be creating life for the purpose of destroying it.”

The bottom line: Obama repealed limits on federal funding of stem-cell research. Romney has not specified his stance, but his religious views may stand in opposition to current policy.


Like your bigscreen TVs, your Facebook and Twitter? Are you a mayor in 4Square or have your family’s highest score in Angry Birds? Do you shop online? Is your refrigerator, computer or car energy efficient? Are you taking medication that keeps in check an illness that killed your grandparents?

Thank science.

What is the cost of undervaluing science? Living Under the China Skies or giving up personal security in ways most people can’t imagine.

Like your life, your gadgets and toys and want more for less at the grocery store and gas pump?

Vote Science.


Politics and Your Mind 17 Oct 2012 (The Day After the Obama-Romney Hofstra Town Hall Style Debate)


NextStage Political Reader determines political outcomes based on how people are thinking when they're on monitored websitesThis post continues a thread started in Politics and Your Mind 9 Oct 2012 (Introducing the NextStage Political Reader) and continued in Politics and the Gender Mind 10-12 Oct 2012 (With a Touch of Debate BS and PersonaScoping at the End). We’re using The NextStage Political Reader to determine how people will vote in the 2012 US Presidential election.

The same caveats apply here as previously: NextStage is not monitoring all sites in the US nor was the entire voting population online during the time this data was collected.

A Quick Read of the Charts

  • Say – What people would tell you in conversation. These numbers should be closest to national polls.
  • Think – Which party do people think will do better. This may or may not be who people would vote for or who they want to win, only who they think will do better.
  • Hearts – This is the number that most closely responds to the outcome of a secret ballot if held today.
  • End – If people could be magically transported to their real voting venue and knew for a fact that their vote would actually make a difference, how would they vote?

The Gender Divide

The twelve or so hours since the debate started have been busy internet-wise. NextStage tracked over 10 million people (3.43% of the voter population) (over 7½ million women and close to 3 million men) and there is no doubt that President Obama carried the evening as far as women voters go. What President Obama also managed to do was make lots of men reconsider their voting decision. They didn’t go totally democratic and they did move away from republican by a substantial margin.

How Would They Say They’d Vote Right Now?
How did the Hofstra Debate Affect How Voters Say They'll Vote?

The real shift is in male consciousness, though. In their own minds, men believe President Obama won the debate.

But What Do They Think?

Heartwise, men still believe President Obama won the debate by a large margin although here we see that men still have a hankering for Governor Romney.

And What Are Their Hearts Telling Them?

But in the end and all things considered, the Democrats won the night.

And In the End, Will Hearts or Minds Prevail?

A Final Word

The Republicans may also believe President Obama and the Democrats carried the night. As I write this, it is slightly after 10amET and so far the only political calls to our offices have been by Republican operatives, and those to let us know how wrong President Obama was and what he wasn’t telling the debate audience. Normally there’s a 50/50 mix and the calls are issue oriented.