Gaming the system

[BT]

Google Wars - The Next Battlefield

Chris Bowers at the prominent lefty blog MyDD describes an ingenious (yet morally bankrupt) idea that may push a few votes into the Blue:

I have tentatively named [this project] Google Bombing The Election.

What
The utilization of Google Adwords and simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to drive as many voters as possible toward the most damning, non-partisan article written on the Republican candidate in seventy key US Senate and House races. The campaign will run from Tuesday, October 24th until Tuesday, November 7th.

Why
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the number one way that voters use the Internet for political action is to search for information on candidates. During the final two weeks of the election, it is reasonable to expect that as many as twenty million voters will be searching for information on candidates online. During this key time, this project will help push the most negative article written by a non-partisan media source on all key Republican candidates to the forefront of any search for that candidate. The negative article will appear both high on all Google searches for the candidates, and as an advertisement that appears whenever anyone searches for that candidate. By giving this article two prominent locations on Google searches for the candidate, and because it will come from a non-partisan source, it will increase the likelihood that the article will be seen and trusted by those searching for information on the candidate.

Well, it ought to work - I have no doubt that a group of lefty blogs collectively have a lot more Google-clout than any individual Congressman's web page.

Are earnest righties interested in pushing back?  I will volunteer to help push a few stories for Chris Shays, in my district, although I will be happy to link to anyone else looking for a little (very little) Google-love.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/10/google_wars_the.html

Check the url for embedded links in the story.

[Michael Tee]

I'd say it's a losing game for the Democrats.  They don't have the money the GOP can raise, and with enough money you can game anything successfully.  Just as the Republicans have subverted the MSM, in time they will subvert the internet.

The only thing they can't game is a young man who has no fear of death.  Whether he wears black pyjamas or a keffiyah.

[Amianthus]

I'd say it's a losing game for the Democrats.  They don't have the money the GOP can raise, and with enough money you can game anything successfully.  Just as the Republicans have subverted the MSM, in time they will subvert the internet.

You do realize that the Democrats raised more money than the Republicans the last two elections, right?

And besides, Al Gore invented the InterNet, he should be able to control it.

[Michael Tee]

<<You do realize that the Democrats raised more money than the Republicans the last two elections, right?>>

No, actually, I didn't know that.  It surprises me.  I thought that in this election the Republicans had lots more money and I figured that's how it was in the last two as well.

Are your figures generally accepted or is there some kind of dispute going on about them right now?

[Amianthus]

No, actually, I didn't know that.  It surprises me.  I thought that in this election the Republicans had lots more money and I figured that's how it was in the last two as well.

I remember reading quite a few articles like this one over the last two election cycles.

I saw some totals somewhere for 2002. Reports for 2004 are still being submitted to the IRS and FEC.

[Michael Tee]

That site was just a forest of links, none of which, by their title, indicated it was about election spending.

[Amianthus]

That site was just a forest of links, none of which, by their title, indicated it was about election spending.

It was a Washington Post article.

Here is the bare URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64672-2004Jul20.html

And I tested it using the preview screen before I posted, and again after your post. Works fine for me.

[Michael Tee]

The article referred to a specific six-month period only.  Read the article more carefully.  Overall, of course, the Republicans raised more money.

<<While Republicans maintain a sizable overall financial edge for this election cycle, the Democrats' across-the-board fundraising surge is providing an unexpected boost to Kerry and Democratic Senate and House candidates just as the election season intensifies. >>

This is more in accordance with what I always knew and what seems like plain common sense.  The Republicans represent the wealthiest 10% to 20% of the population and their policies obviously favour them.  You'd have to live in a cave on the moon not to know that.  It would be absurd if they didn't have access to many times the funding that the Democrats can scrape up.

You guys have a knack of stating the most outrageous bullshit as if it were undeniable fact, and I have to admit, sometimes even I almost fall for it.  I really was wondering, after I read your post, "Now how could I have missed that?  Why didn't I know?  and What's the catch?" 

[Amianthus]

The article referred to a specific six-month period only.  Read the article more carefully.  Overall, of course, the Republicans raised more money.

And there were quite a few more months to go before the election, and the Democrats continued to raise more money.

There was an article posted on 3DHS after the 2004 elections about how the Democrats outspent the Republicans and still lost.

But I guess your memory just didn't register those articles at time - not important enough for you, I guess.

[Michael Tee]

<<But I guess your memory just didn't register those articles at time - not important enough for you, I guess.>>

How come the link to the later article wasn't important enough for YOU to register in YOUR memory?  (just askin)

[Amianthus]

How come the link to the later article wasn't important enough for YOU to register in YOUR memory?  (just askin)

It did register in my memory. Can't find it online though. As I said in the initial post, the link I posted was just representative of many articles that I've read. Those articles continue to this day, with some being posted in the media today and yesterday talking about the Democrats taking funding leads in this race and that race.

[Plane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/financing_2006_the_parties.html

"...What, then, explains the difference in party receipts? By my analysis, 3 factors explain 77% of the variation in party fundraising. The first is time. The Republicans, in the 1970s, had an incredible fundraising advantage over the Democrats. Over time, the latter have whittled this advantage down from 187% in 1976 to 33% in 2004. What has happened is that the Democrats have modernized their fundraising program, effectively duplicating what the Republicans do - in particular, the Democrats have slowly but surely developed a very impressive direct mail strategy. In other words, there has been a secular trend toward fundraising parity.

The second factor that explains fundraising receipts is whether the FEC has complete data. Soft money was permitted beginning in the 1980 election - but the FEC did not require the reporting of this money until the 1992 election. The Democrats consistently enjoyed a soft money advantage over the Republicans - when this money was included in FEC reports, the size of the reported difference between the parties shrunk.

The third factor is whether the election is a presidential or midterm election. In the former, the Republican money advantage tends to shrink. There are two reasons this might be the case. First, the parties have to host conventions, which cost each party about the same amount every year and which businesses and labor unions strongly support. This might give Democrats a boost relative to Republicans because, for a major part of party activity, they are on par with the GOP. Another factor might be that Republican donors are more politically active than Democratic donors. GOP sponsors might not need the stimulus of a presidential election, while Democratic donors do.... "

[Amianthus]

And now that you don't have soft money any more, you have 527s.

The majority of the 527s seem to lean to the liberal side, from my observations.