Revealed: Trump campaign strategy to deter millions of Black Americans from voting

KIf5ELaOjOk&t

Trump's election campaign wanted to deter millions of Black Americans from voting in 2016. The 'Deterrence' project can be revealed after Channel 4 News obtained the database used by Trump's digital campaign team.

Millions of Americans in key battleground states were separated into eight categories, so they could be targeted with tailored ads online.

One of the categories was named 'Deterrence', which was later described publicly by Trump's chief data scientist as containing people the campaign "hope don't show up to vote".

Analysis by Channel 4 News shows Black Americans - historically a community targeted with voter suppression tactics - were disproportionately marked 'Deterrence' by the 2016 campaign.

In total, 3.5 million Black Americans were marked 'Deterrence'.

Overall, people of colour labelled as Black, Hispanic, Asian and 'Other' groups made up 54% of the 'Deterrence' category. Meanwhile, categories of voters the campaign wished to attract were overwhelmingly white.

The investigation reveals the Trump campaign targeted Black Americans with negative ads on Facebook and social media - despite the campaign's denials.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
KIf5ELaOjOk&tAll perfectly legal, but its interesting and disturbing to see the extent to which the Trump campaign tried to stop Blacks from voting. $55,000 dollars spent deterring Georgia blacks alone, huh.

Sigh.

Ok... this story sure made standard legal campaign tactics (obviously used by both sides IMO) into something scary. Don’t know why they seem to be implying these kind of tactics is exclusive to Trump tho. IF democrats didn’t do the same thing, they’d be pretty incompetent IMO. IS channel 4 a liberal news organization? Sounds like it tbh.

Let’s be honest here tho: this is a far cry from Antifa/BLM using intimidation and harassment to discourage ppl from voting (w/c is the one that isn’t or shouldn’t be legal).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sigh.

Ok... this story sure made standard legal campaign tactics (obviously used by both sides IMO) into something scary. Don’t know why they seem to be implying these kind of tactics is exclusive to Trump tho. IF democrats didn’t do the same thing, they’d be pretty incompetent IMO. IS channel 4 a liberal news organization? Sounds like it tbh.

Let’s be honest here tho: this is a far cry from Antifa/BLM using intimidation and harassment to discourage ppl from voting (w/c is the one that isn’t or shouldn’t be legal).

Excellent point.

I mean this isn't new.

I can't remember if it was Virginia or North Carolina but a GOP member in those states admitted that they knew some of their voting laws were going to effect African Americans more than others.

He then said that was the goal because they were going to vote democrat.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sigh.

Ok... this story sure made standard legal campaign tactics (obviously used by both sides IMO) into something scary. Don’t know why they seem to be implying these kind of tactics is exclusive to Trump tho. IF democrats didn’t do the same thing, they’d be pretty incompetent IMO. IS channel 4 a liberal news organization? Sounds like it tbh.

Let’s be honest here tho: this is a far cry from Antifa/BLM using intimidation and harassment to discourage ppl from voting (w/c is the one that isn’t or shouldn’t be legal).

However I think its important and yes disturbing to know how sophisticated and targeted political campaigns are becoming in regards to profiling voters in this kind of way.

What has Antifa/BLM done to discourage voting?

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Sure perfect legal and a far cry from voter suppression, though I wouldn’t assume the Democrats were using similar tactics (deterring voters along racial lines) without evidence.

However I think its important and yes disturbing to know how sophisticated and targeted political campaigns are becoming in regards to profiling voters in this kind of way.

What has Antifa/BLM done to discourage voting?

I would assume the “deplorables” narrative HC was tossing around was one tactic to deter voters along racial lines (infer Trump voting would make you racist, playing on white guilt). I would even say that her entire campaign was as much disuading white Republican/centrist voters as much as it was to encourage her own base to vote. I would even go as far as to say that ALL campaigns work that way. Are you even under the impression that certain tactics were off limits in political campaigns (as long as it is legal)?

That’s how ads/campaigns work. They are subtle. But behind it is sophisticated data gathering and analysis.

Altho, does “racial divide” even make voter deterance worse? Is effective targeting via demographics something evil now? I’m sorry to say, but EVERY marketing/ad company targets using race as one of the factors. Every single one.

There’s very little here that one can even call all that sophisticated tho, in today’s standards. Demographic targeting of ads is one of the oldest most basic things in advertising. I guess if you frame it the way they did it (the story was quite well narrated), it makes it seem really insidious.

As for Antifa: Harassment and intimidation, like standing outside GOP conventions and yelling/screamin hate at ppl exiting would be one and is far more impactful than facebook ads.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I would assume the “deplorables” narrative HC was tossing around was one tactic to deter voters along racial lines (infer Trump voting would make you racist, playing on white guilt). I would even say that her entire campaign was as much disuading white Republican/centrist voters as much as it was to encourage her own base to vote. I would even go as far as to say that ALL campaigns work that way. Are you even under the impression that certain tactics were off limits in political campaigns (as long as it is legal)?

That’s how ads/campaigns work. They are subtle. But behind it is sophisticated data gathering and analysis.

Altho, does “racial divide” even make voter deterance worse? Is effective targeting via demographics something evil now? I’m sorry to say, but EVERY marketing/ad company targets using race as one of the factors. Every single one.

There’s very little here that one can even call all that sophisticated tho, in today’s standards. Demographic targeting of ads is one of the oldest most basic things in advertising. I guess if you frame it the way they did it (the story was quite well narrated), it makes it seem really insidious.

As for Antifa: Harassment and intimidation, like standing outside GOP conventions and yelling/screamin hate at ppl exiting would be one and is far more impactful than facebook ads.

Advertising based on demographic is not new no, but it's much more sophisticated that it has been in the past. Poltical campaigns and media companies in general have never been able to harvest as much data about you individually as they can now. It is not even accurate to say they are targeting based on demographic, rather they are targeting you as an individual.

If there intent is to sell me doughnuts based on more search history then that it's icky a best, but funneling targeted political propaganda into people's media streams is a form of conditioning, and not nearly as regulated as what they put out on the news.

I'll grant you the racial aspect of it was bigged up by the doc however, the GOP do just seem to be trying to take a concerted crack at the DNC's hold over Black American voters. Though its telling they either have little interest in securing that vote for themselves, or just a lack of faith in their ability to do so.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
KIf5ELaOjOk&tAll perfectly legal, but its interesting and disturbing to see the extent to which the Trump campaign tried to stop Blacks from voting. $55,000 dollars spent deterring Georgia blacks alone, huh.

So Republicans are trying to attract people who will vote for them, and attack the Democratic parties base?

It's almost like they're trying to win an election.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I mean specifically in terms of targeted advertising that relies on mining people's data and profiling them based on that. I have little doubt that the DNC use those kinds of tactics, but just not making any assumptions about the nature of it without hard evidence.

Advertising based on demographic is not new no, but it's much more sophisticated that it has been in the past. Poltical campaigns and media companies in general have never been able to harvest as much data about you individually as they can now. It is not even accurate to say they are targeting based on demographic, rather they are targeting you as an individual.

If there intent is to sell me doughnuts based on more search history then that it's icky a best, but funneling targeted political propaganda into people's media streams is a form of conditioning, and not nearly as regulated as what they put out on the news.

I'll grant you the racial aspect of it was bigged up by the doc however, the GOP do just seem to be trying to take a concerted crack at the DNC's hold over Black American voters. Though its telling they either have little interest in securing that vote for themselves, or just a lack of faith in their ability to do so.

So it's ok when the democrats do it?

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I mean specifically in terms of targeted advertising that relies on mining people's data and profiling them based on that. I have little doubt that the DNC use those kinds of tactics, but just not making any assumptions about the nature of it without hard evidence.

Advertising based on demographic is not new no, but it's much more sophisticated that it has been in the past. Poltical campaigns and media companies in general have never been able to harvest as much data about you individually as they can now. It is not even accurate to say they are targeting based on demographic, rather they are targeting you as an individual.

If there intent is to sell me doughnuts based on more search history then that it's icky a best, but funneling targeted political propaganda into people's media streams is a form of conditioning, and not nearly as regulated as what they put out on the news.

I'll grant you the racial aspect of it was bigged up by the doc however, the GOP do just seem to be trying to take a concerted crack at the DNC's hold over Black American voters. Though its telling they either have little interest in securing that vote for themselves, or just a lack of faith in their ability to do so.

A lack of faith. Probably justified.

Many times have I spoken with a member of a minority group who has severe reservations about the Democratic party, and who's idealogy aligns with Republicans, yet who refuse to even consider voting for them because of the belief that they're a party of white racist xenophobes.

In one case, a pro-zionist jew claimed he had a big problem with Democrats anti-israel stance, and that STILL wasn't enough to get him to consider changing parties.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I mean specifically in terms of targeted advertising that relies on mining people's data and profiling them based on that. I have little doubt that the DNC use those kinds of tactics, but just not making any assumptions about the nature of it without hard evidence.

Advertising based on demographic is not new no, but it's much more sophisticated that it has been in the past. Poltical campaigns and media companies in general have never been able to harvest as much data about you individually as they can now. It is not even accurate to say they are targeting based on demographic, rather they are targeting you as an individual.

If there intent is to sell me doughnuts based on more search history then that it's icky a best, but funneling targeted political propaganda into people's media streams is a form of conditioning, and not nearly as regulated as what they put out on the news.

I'll grant you the racial aspect of it was bigged up by the doc however, the GOP do just seem to be trying to take a concerted crack at the DNC's hold over Black American voters. Though its telling they either have little interest in securing that vote for themselves, or just a lack of faith in their ability to do so.

Data mining and profiling is a common practice with advertising and marketing research firms. How are you delineating the different means on how these data is used that would make one worse/better than the other? Is that even what we’re discussing here? I’m lost. 😛

I mean, again, the “deplorables” narrative had obvious voter deterence as its goals. What makes that different/worse/better than targetted facebook ads? Heck, I’d say that’s more blatant and more dangerous as it also inserts racial division/conflict as part of its obvious end results.

Why ask for something so specific? I mean the story didn’t even point out w/c specific ads (they even admit that they don’t have copies of the ads that do what they imply it is doing, just that they had data that categorized certain ppl to be deterred).

It’s only sophisticated in that algorithms can be created to profile a far larger range of individual habits/preferences based on the type of media you consume/prefer/are attracted to. The software/hardware is better but the basic fundamentals are the same. Abacus vs Calculator vs PC. Technology makes the heavy lifting a lot easier so it can be done at a far greater capacity. It doesn’t really target you as a person, but it has enough computing power to categorize far greater number of ppl in a much more detailed way. Being better at doing something does not make it inherently evil.

But why is the sophistication even relevant here? If we’re looking at the context and implications of the story, it is trying to paint something mundane and commonplace (in the industry) as something sinister and insidious. This is just not the case. For as long as advertising/marketing research firms exist, we will profile and categorize individuals based on what type of behaviors we want to encourage/deter. Computers make us better at it but that doesn’t really change the intention and it doesn’t make what we do worse/better from an ethical standpoint IMO.

Ad targetting is just common practice and common sense. Do what works (gotta be legal tho) to sell your crap and take your customer’s money. IF you think this type of manipulation is bad, you should see how video game companies do it. It’ll make this type of manipulation seem like baby games.

It’s not that they have little interest in securing the vote themselves. Make no mistake: they WANT that vote (they’re not stupid). It’s just likely that they were basing their general courses of action on what is statistically likely based on behavioral and demographical characteristics. I’m certain, tho, that there were plans on how to attempt to secure the votes as well since campaigns aren’t grossly one dimensional (unless the ad/marketing/campaigning firm was grossly incompetent). But going into details of a campaign in such a manner would not tell the story the “journalist” wanted to tell so I’m sure they would have left it out if that existed. In the end, this story simply played on ppl’s ignorance, anger, fears and biases. Personally, I love how they inserted the phrase “disproportionally targetted blacks”. It implies racism even tho racism wasn’t even there (if a far larger % of blacks would likely vote for your opponent, then obviously a larger % of the black demographic would be in your “hope they don’t vote” list. It’s not racism, it’s math.)

Data mining and profiling is a common practice with advertising and marketing research firms. How are you delineating the different means on how these data is used that would make one worse/better than the other? Is that even what we’re discussing here? I’m lost. 😛

I mean, again, the “deplorables” narrative had obvious voter deterence as its goals. What makes that different/worse/better than targetted facebook ads? Heck, I’d say that’s more blatant and more dangerous as it also inserts racial division/conflict as part of its obvious end results.

Why ask for something so specific? I mean the story didn’t even point out w/c specific ads (they even admit that they don’t have copies of the ads that do what they imply it is doing, just that they had data that categorized certain ppl to be deterred).

It's only sophisticated in that algorithms can be created to profile a far larger range of individual habits/preferences based on the type of media you consume/prefer/are attracted to. The software/hardware is better but the basic fundamentals are the same. Abacus vs Calculator vs PC. Technology makes the heavy lifting a lot easier so it can be done at a far greater capacity. It doesn’t really target you as a person, but it has enough computing power to categorize far greater number of ppl in a much more detailed way. Being better at doing something does not make it inherently evil.

But why is the sophistication even relevant here? If we’re looking at the context and implications of the story, it is trying to paint something mundane and commonplace (in the industry) as something sinister and insidious. This is just not the case. For as long as advertising/marketing research firms exist, we will profile and categorize individuals based on what type of behaviors we want to encourage/deter. Computers make us better at it but that doesn’t really change the intention and it doesn’t make what we do worse/better from an ethical standpoint IMO.

Ad targetting is just common practice and common sense. Do what works (gotta be legal tho) to sell your crap and take your customer’s money. IF you think this type of manipulation is bad, you should see how video game companies do it. It’ll make this type of manipulation seem like baby games.

It’s not that they have little interest in securing the vote themselves. Make no mistake: they WANT that vote (they’re not stupid). It’s just likely that they were basing their general courses of action on what is statistically likely based on behavioral and demographical characteristics. I’m certain, tho, that there were plans on how to attempt to secure the votes as well since campaigns aren’t grossly one dimensional (unless the ad/marketing/campaigning firm was grossly incompetent). But going into details of a campaign in such a manner would not tell the story the “journalist” wanted to tell so I’m sure they would have left it out if that existed. In the end, this story simply played on ppl’s ignorance, anger, fears and biases. Personally, I love how they inserted the phrase “disproportionally targetted blacks”. It implies racism even tho racism wasn’t even there (if a far larger % of blacks would likely vote for your opponent, then obviously a larger % of the black demographic would be in your “hope they don’t vote” list. It’s not racism, it’s math.)

So Trump campaign is doing what campaigns do.

Okay.

Am...am I supposed to be upset at this or what?

End of the day a person has their own agency, if they wanna vote they will vote.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I'm not going to dwell on this because whether or not the DNC are doing the same thing as the GOP (in relation to targeted ads) is besides the point. I suspect they are, but I was merely making the observation that without as clear an insight into the DNC's digital campaign (not their campaign in general), we don't KNOW exactly who they targeted digitally and how.

Of course, and that's exactly what I meant. Targeted advertising is a much more powerful tool that it has been in the past, and continues to become more advanced. It is not inherently evil no, as I said besides the privacy concerns involved (though those remain a concern) private businesses using my data to sell me products is not particularly insidious. But again, there is a big differences between private businesses using my data to try and sway me into buying a product, and a political party doing the same to try to sway (if not manipulate) my worldview. Especially when the later often involves the manipulation of truth, and preying on my political, racial and social biases.

I agree with you on this point, the doc didn't show the full scope of the ads they were using, and they did play up the race card unfairly.

Methodology in data gathering is pretty much similar across the board (they either do their own polling or they buy it from data brokers). Heck, I’m sure the DNC ALSO taps facebook for targetted ads (they’d be dumb if they didn’t). If I look into it, I’m sure I’d find that the DNC uses the same type of data gathering and profiling that the GOP does but you are right. Methodology is beside the point. So I’ll not waste time here.

Bottom line, is that IF the concern was the sophistication of the data gathering/profiling that they did. I have to say it’s nothing special. And it’s just going to get better as technology improves and better algorithms are used to profile ppl. Technology is not inherently insidious or evil tho.

IF the concern is the use of the above technology to manipulate ppl. I find very little difference between targetted facebook ads and campaign speeches. The intention/effect is what is important. IF voter deterrance is bad then both are bad (at different degrees based on how we see things. I personally think a divise speech made to guilt ppl into not voting is worse as it also has the added consequence of possibly stirring up racial division).

I’ll be honest tho. In my observation, media/entertainment/education (when educators become activits) is FAR more egregious AND effective in the manipulation of truth and one’s worldview. I mean, how many times has a political ad made you truly emotional or angry that it changed how you see the world? Now compare that to something CNN/Fox reported on (with sufficient repetition of such message) or some youtube presenter that you watch or some movie (let’s say the movie is telling you that Catholics = evil, a movie about the Inquition for example) or rap songs that tell you cops = racist killers and tell me how many times such things have impacted your worldview (whether what they say is truth or not). Personally, I think you are looking at the wrong manipulation to be concerned about. 😛

Originally posted by Surtur
So Trump campaign is doing what campaigns do.

Okay.

Am...am I supposed to be upset at this or what?

End of the day a person has their own agency, if they wanna vote they will vote.

It's a "breaking" news story that is being pulled out, magically, 4 years later, mere weeks before voting day will happen when market research shows Trump having near-record level of support from the Black voting block.

This tactic is not transparent, at all.

Wondering what the Democratic tactic will be after tonight's debate where Trump insults Biden over and over? I am curious. I want to see if Democrats are serious about Biden or if he was purposefully thrown up as a "we knew he'd fail" candidate.

Reminds me of them repeating the tax story they already reported 4 years ago.

And all this reminded me about Trump bragging during that one debate about paying as little taxes as possible lol.

Why...is this news?

It's like the OP doesn't realize that the very story he's posting is an example of trying to deter people from voting for someone.

If he is truly disturbed by the use of this tactic, why isn't he calling out the people who wrote the story he's using in the OP?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So it's ok when the democrats do it?

If there is nothing wrong with what Republicans are doing, why do you care?

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's like the OP doesn't realize that the very story he's posting is an example of trying to deter people from voting for someone.

If he is truly disturbed by the use of this tactic, why isn't he calling out the people who wrote the story he's using in the OP?

👆