I knew all the spying was going to be useful for something:
"Presidential campaigns acquire personal data on voters" by Charles Duhigg | New York Times, October 14, 2012
NEW YORK — Strategists affiliated with the campaigns of President Obama and Mitt Romney say they have access to information about the personal lives of voters at a scale never before imagined. And they are using that data to try to influence voting habits.
In effect, they are training voters to go the polls through subtle cues, rewards, and threats in a manner akin to the marketing efforts of credit card companies and big-box retailers.
Yeah, that's really going to win over voters.
In the weeks before Election Day, millions of voters will hear from callers with surprisingly detailed knowledge of their lives. These callers — friends of friends or long-lost work colleagues — will identify themselves as volunteers for the campaigns or independent political groups.
The callers will be guided by scripts and call lists compiled by people — or computers — with access to details such as whether voters may have visited pornography websites, have homes in foreclosure, are more prone to drink Michelob Ultra than Corona, or have gay friends or enjoy expensive vacations.
The callers are likely to ask detailed question about how the voters plan to spend Election Day, according to professionals with both presidential campaigns. What time will they vote? What route will they drive to the polls? Simply asking such questions, experiments show, is likely to increase turnout.
After these conversations, when those targeted voters open their mailboxes or check their Facebook profiles, they may find that someone has divulged specifics about how frequently they and their neighbors have voted in the past. Calling out people for not voting, what experts term ‘‘public shaming,’’ can prod someone to cast a ballot.
Even as campaigns embrace this ability to know so much more about voters, they recognize the risks associated with intruding into the lives of people who have long expected that the privacy of the voting booth extends to their homes.
‘‘You don’t want your analytical efforts to be obvious because voters get creeped out,’’ said a Romney campaign official who was not authorized to speak to a reporter. ‘‘A lot of what we’re doing is behind the scenes.’’
Seems to be something Romney likes.
In statements, both campaigns emphasized their dedication to voters’ privacy.
“We are committed to protecting individual privacy at every turn — adhering to industry best practices on privacy and going above and beyond what’s required by law,’’ said Adam Fetcher, an Obama campaign spokesman.
Ryan Williams, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, said: ‘‘The Romney campaign respects the privacy rights of all Americans. We are committed to ensuring that all of our voter outreach is governed by the highest ethical standards.’’
How hollow words sound from liars.
In interviews, however, consultants to both campaigns said they had bought demographic data from companies that study details like voters’ shopping histories, gambling tendencies, interest in get-rich-quick schemes, dating preferences, and financial problems.
The campaigns, according to campaign employees, have examined voters’ online exchanges and social networks to see what they care about and whom they know. They have also authorized tests to see if, say, a phone call from a distant cousin or a new friend would be more likely to prompt the urge to cast a ballot.
Related: Friendship, politics collide through social media
While the campaigns say they do not buy data that they consider intrusive, the Democratic and Republican National Committees combined have spent at least $13 million this year on data acquisition and related services. The parties have paid companies like Acxiom, Experian, and Equifax, which are subjects of congressional scrutiny over privacy concerns.
I hope the campaign contribution was worth it.
Consultants to the presidential campaigns said in interviews that their businesses had bought data from Rapleaf or Intelius, companies that have been sued over alleged privacy or consumer protection violations.
Officials at both campaigns say the most insightful data remain the basics: a voter’s party affiliation, voting history, basic information like age and race, and preferences gleaned from one-on-one conversations with volunteers.
But more subtle data mining has helped the Obama campaign learn that its supporters often eat at Red Lobster, shop at Burlington Coat Factory, and listen to smooth jazz. Romney backers are more likely to drink Samuel Adams beer, eat at Olive Garden, and watch college football.
Who is promoting stereotypes now?
The preoccupation with influencing voters’ habits stems from the fact that many close elections were ultimately decided by people who almost did not vote. Each campaign has identified millions of ‘‘low-propensity voters.’’
It makes me feel so much better that the deciders of the selection, 'er, election, are a bunch of low information idiots.
Persuading such voters is difficult, political professionals say, because direct appeals have failed. So campaigns must enlist more subtle methods.
The Obama and Romney campaigns have asked supporters to provide access to their profiles on Facebook and other social networks to chart connections to low-propensity voters in battleground states like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio.
--more--"
Speaking of selling out:
"In twist, evangelicals now backing Mitt Romney; Long wary of his Mormon faith, the religious right rallying to his cause" by Michael Kranish | Globe Staff, October 14, 2012
CULPEPER, Va. — Therein lies one of the more unlikely stories of this year’s presidential campaign: evangelicals are now a vital part of Romney’s hope to win....
“Romney is counting on evangelicals. The irony is that this is a shotgun marriage between two very different religions but they are completely dependent upon one another for victory,” said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics....
Related: Sunday Globe Special: Ralph Reed's Redemption
The motivating force is to defeat President Obama....
The senior pastor is Ernest Custalow, who grew up on a nearby Indian reservation and traces his ancestry to Pocahontas, who is said to have been converted to Christianity by English settlers in the 1600s.
As an evangelical, Custalow feels he is carrying on that element of his ancestor’s heritage. He built the church from a dozen members to a large complex of buildings and a congregation of more than 800 worshipers.
On recent Sundays, Custalow said, he has preached to his congregation the importance of voting for a candidate who opposes abortion and gay marriage, leaving no doubt he backed Romney and opposed Obama. While he said many evangelicals believe Mormonism is a cult, he said the relevant question is which candidate supports what he called “biblical values.”
Isn't that supposed to be against the law?
“I said, in this election, there is one candidate who stands for biblical values and there is one that is opposed to biblical values, and you are called as Christians to vote for the people who stand for biblical values,” Custalow said.
After the service, Custalow sends congregants to the foyer, where a desk with voter registration materials awaits them. It is a scene, he said, that is repeated in many churches across Virginia and the country.
I'm pretty sure that is illegal, but....
Custalow said that he, like D.J. Moberley, a 30-year-old evangelical Christian, has noticed that evangelicals have grown increasingly comfortable in recent months with the prospect of a Mormon as president. The turning point, he said, came when Romney spoke at Liberty University in May.
“That was like, shock of shocks,” Custalow said. “It sent a strong signal to evangelicals.”
It was a turning point years in the making.
Liberty University was founded by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell Sr., who in 2006 was part of a group of evangelical leaders who visited Romney as his home in Belmont, Mass. The meeting was held as Romney was pondering his first run for president and was making an effort to win over skeptical social conservatives.
Some of the evangelical leaders bluntly told Romney at that meeting that Mormonism was not considered part of traditional Christianity, but many also said they were more concerned about where Romney stood on social issues such as abortion. Romney was subsequently defeated in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, due in part to opposition from evangelicals, and he later dropped out of the race.
He avoided a similar fate in the primaries this time, in part because he focused more on economic issues than social ones and evangelicals divided their votes among several candidates. But as Romney hit the reset button for the general election, he again began an aggressive outreach effort to evangelicals. His senior adviser on evangelical issues, Atlanta public relations agent Mark DeMoss, had served as chief of staff to Falwell and had helped set up the 2006 meeting.
DeMoss was in position to help reconnect Romney to evangelicals: he also is chairman of the board of the executive committee of Liberty University, which is now run by the late Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr.....
As a result, Falwell said, “I definitely believe that the evangelical Christians will make the difference in the Virginia ballot.” And Falwell is helping to make sure that difference starts at his school, which strongly encourages voter registration.
Falwell estimated that 80 percent of the school’s 12,000 students are registered to vote — Liberty has its own precinct — and surveys have found that the vast majority support Romney. Many students joined registration efforts across the state, amplifying Liberty’s influence.
Romney underscored his outreach to evangelicals last Thursday when he met for the first time with the famed evangelist, the Reverend Billy Graham. Graham’s son, Franklin, who had been among those who went to Romney’s home in 2006, facilitated the 30-minute meeting in North Carolina.
Afterward, the 93-year-old Graham said in a statement that he hoped Americans would “vote for candidates who will support the biblical definition of marriage, protect the sanctity of life and defend our religious freedoms.”
Michael Wear, the faith vote coordinator for the Obama campaign, said the president expects to receive significant support from evangelicals.
“While the president may not agree with every evangelical leader on every issue, evangelicals know they can trust the president and that he shares their values on many of the issues at stake in this election,” Wear said.
The campaign recently launched an effort called “People of Faith for Obama,” which includes a video in which the president decries the way faith is used “as a wedge in politics.” Rebutting critics who question his commitment, Obama says in the video that “the power of my Christian faith . . . has guided me through my presidency and in my life.”
A national survey released earlier this month by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that white evangelical registered voters favor Romney over President Obama by 73 percent to 21 percent.
Charles Dunn, a professor of government at Regent University who has written extensively about religion and politics, said Romney appears to be succeeding in an attempt to bridge a divide between Mormons and evangelicals....
Nonetheless, Dunn said, “the tension will survive. There are Baptist missionaries in Utah trying to convert Mormons and Mormons in Virginia trying to convert southern Baptists. They go door to door. It is like hand to hand combat.” For some evangelicals, he said, it is difficult to support Romney knowing that he will be seen as “the Mormon church’s best missionary.”
Moberley understands the skepticism of evangelicals, as well as their political power. Last April, after it was clear Romney was going to be the GOP nominee, he posted an essay on Facebook titled, “Time to Rally.”
As an evangelical, he wrote, “the sound of rallying behind Mitt Romney doesn’t get me excited. It’s true . . . RomneyCare, abortion flip flopping and Mormonism were all problems for me.” But, he continued, “like it or lunk it, our conservative for the foreseeable future is Mitt Romney.”
--more--"
Related:
"Most political analysts still give Obama an edge in winning the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency. Real Clear Politics currently projects Obama winning 201 votes, with 181 for Romney, giving the incumbent president more pathways to the 270 needed to win.
But over the past week, the nonpartisan website has moved five states that had been leaning toward Obama into the toss-up category. If Romney is able to continue with the momentum he seems to have caught since the first debate 10 days ago, he may be able to expand the political map.
The biggest hurdle for Romney is Ohio, where he spent most of the past five days trying to eliminate a deficit in the polls. Without winning Ohio’s 18 electoral votes, Romney would have to carry almost all of the other battleground states, most of which are currently neck-and-neck....
--more--"
Also see: Slow Saturday Special: Ohio's One Percent
