Political Nanotargeting

Many people think of politics as a lot of hot air. It turns out politics may be more like rocket science.

Since the 2004 George W. Bush presidential campaign, Republican and Democratic political strategists have been using nanotargeting to reach and activate their political bases. To target ads, operatives pore over voting histories, housing values, recreational preferences, automobile ownership, TV viewership as well as favorite restaurants, drinks and websites.

Who knew that your zest for Arby's or the number of bedrooms in your home could drop hints about your political leanings?

In a recent piece in The New York Times, Thomas Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, probes this intensifying segmentation — and polarization — of the American electorate. Here are some tips Edsall offers in spotting stereotypical Republicans and Democrats:

  • Someone who reads The Washington Post or watches the Comedy Channel is more likely to be a Democrat. People who reads The Wall Street Journal or watches Country Music Television or the Golf Channel are probably Republicans.

  • Among the top 10 favorite TV shows of Republicans are "The Office," "The Big Bang Theory," "Desperate Housewives" and "The Biggest Loser."  Democrats prefer "Late Show with David Letterman," "PBS NewsHour," "House of Payne" and "60 Minutes."

  • McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's appeal to the political middle. You can spot the Republicans eating at Macaroni Grill, Outback Steakhouse, Arby's and Chick-fil-A, while the Democrats chow down at Popeye's, Dunkin' Donuts and Chuck E. Cheese.

  • The Democratic drinks of choice are cognac or Budweiser. Republicans favor light beers, Guinness and scotch.

  • Don't look for GOP presidential ads on "30 Rock" or Democratic ads on professional football games this fall.

Clearly these are generalized views of American political sympathies. But they are the basis for making critical, make-or-break advertising choices. As Edsall notes, "Incremental shifts among key constituencies — Hispanics, single white working class women and private-sector unionized employees — can be decisive."

Click to read more ...

Colbert: Seriously Funny

Faux news shows have become so prevalent that a lot of people actually depend on them for information, opinions and distortions. Conveniently, they also get a good laugh when they view shows such as The Colbert Report.

But as The New York Times Magazine noted in its weekend edition, Stephen Colbert is more than funny when it comes to pointing out the foibles of federal election laws; he is seriously funny.

Colbert, with the assistance of a former Federal Elections Commission chairman, has created what is known as a Super PAC and called it Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of "soft money" — money contributed directly by corporations or unions — to support or oppose candidates, as long as they don't coordinate with the benefitting campaigns. What coordination actually means isn't clearly spelled out.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow is more than a comedic parody, unlike Colbert's effort in the 2008 election to get on the ballot in South Carolina as a presidential candidate. His Super Pac is real. It has 170,000 names on its database, 30,000 of whom have contributed to the Super PAC. "This is 100 percent legal and at least 10 percent ethical," Colbert says.

The Super PAC has done such oddball things as stage a TV ad campaign in Iowa to cast caucus votes for Rick "Parry," a word play off the real name of real GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry.

Even stranger, Colbert's Super PAC pitched South Carolina Republicans on the idea of the naming rights of its primary election – "The Stephen Colbert Super PAC South Carolina Primary." Ha ha, you say. But South Carolina Republicans actually considered the $400,000 offer. The idea got sidetracked by a South Carolina court, but Democrats in the Palmetto State apparently considered a sweetened $500,000 proposal to appeal the rebuff to a higher court.

Click to read more ...