Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FWD.us: GOP Voters To Be Targeted By Data Scientists

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the also-every-other-type-of-voter dept.

Republicans 422

theodp writes: "We are excited to announce that FWD.us and Hackers/Founders are joining forces to host the 'DEBUG DC' Growthathon on June 21st & June 22nd," reads the blog over at FWD.us, the PAC whose Founders and Major Contributors include current and former CEOs from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn. "This is a unique opportunity to push the envelope in online advocacy for immigration reform." The blog entry explains, "The machine of government is wedged, and is in desperate need of debugging. How do we DEBUG DC? Step One: Target critical legislative districts. Step Two: Data mine these districts to find registered voters who are registered Republicans who we think are likely to support immigration reform. Step Three: Growth hack ways to motivate these people to effectively engage their legislators to tell them they want them to call for a vote on immigration reform. Step Four: Measure results. Step Five: Iterate." The Eventbrite invitation for the event includes a call for Data Scientists who are "pissed off about immigration and want to fix it," are "well versed in statistics and data analysis," and can "infer voter sentiment from sparse data." So, how does this jibe with the outrage expressed by the FWD.us supporters' companies over unauthorized government surveillance?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's just a bad idea... (0, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#47230929)

Everyone knows republicans don't like science or scientists. I hope the data scientists are calling themselves something else to encourage the republicans to actually talk with them.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | about 5 months ago | (#47231015)

you are funny, Republicans pushed big science funding for decades, Democrats kill it.

I despise both parties, by the way, and generally don't vote at federal level for candidates from either one

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1, Troll)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 5 months ago | (#47231461)

By big science, you mean weapons development.

To the exclusion of everything else.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (4, Funny)

saider (177166) | about 5 months ago | (#47231047)

I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom by selecting leadership comprised of doomsday preppers, plumbers, and an Alaskan volleyball player.

we know the answer already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231203)

Republicans hate black people, women, gays and atheists. Dems hate white people, men, straight people, and religion. Waste of money this survey is.

As long as we get someone in office to repeal obamacare all is well.

Re:we know the answer already (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#47231315)

-1 or Poe's Law?

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47231283)

...and an Alaskan volleyball player.

If she's cute, you may just get most of /. to vote for your proposal (hot grits petrification optional).

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#47231299)

I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....

Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231511)

Having fun slurring people you're bigoted against?

Re:That's just a bad idea... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47231171)

1) You're full of crap, because BOTH parties don't like anyone who isn't a lobbyist or fundraising donor.

2) This is a dangerous precedent, no matter who does it or they target - I get enough political spam as it is. Last thing I need is for a bunch of politically-motivated ideologues to harass me in a targeted way** because they think I might be a useful-but-unwitting pawn in their efforts. If you think this will stop with some party faction looking for like-minded people, you're deluded. Next they'll reach out to independents and no-party types, and possibly even further out.

3) As a result of 2: Fuck that, and fuck them.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47231231)

urgh - formatting sucks:

The ** up there means I'd be the perfect demographic for TFA, in spite of being registered as "no party" in my state. My religious persuasion is shared with most Hispanic folks, so yeah - I can see 'em bugging the hell out of me to follow whatever soundbites they want concerning immigration. Again, and I reiterate: I'll do my own thinking and actions, so fuck them.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#47231251)

You mean you're NOT already targeted? I get about fifty emails every day along the lines of OMG HELP US WITH THIS ISSUE. I'm too lazy to block them.

Re:That's just a bad idea... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#47231367)

This is a dangerous precedent

As disgusting as it is, it's not a precedent. Party apparatus, political consultants, PAC's, lobbyists, etc. have been doing this for years, and have plenty of money to throw at it. Other than that it's the usual Silicon Valley hype. Since it comes from SV they (and people who fall for it) go ooh, ahh if it's from SV it must be some brilliantly innovative idea. It's an open question whether or not the SV hype artists believe it themselves. Scarily, I suspect they do, but if you want actual expertise in this area, get thee to D.C.

This will hugely backfire... (5, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#47230953)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#47230985)

And your average ... thought Citizen's United was a terrible decision and won't support companies using their money for political purposes.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231089)

Yeah. Thanks to Citizens United Cantor was able to outspend Brat 26:1 and keep his seat.

ohwait

Re:This will hugely backfire... (4, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#47231219)

Clearly, you can extrapolate from a single data point.

For every Cantor that deservingly got tossed out, there are many that managed to outspend and keep their seats.

What more concerning is that unlimited money could buy unlimited influence. When average candidate has to spend this kind of crazy money to get elected, then donors are in position to dictate policy. Damage of Citizen's United is not money flowing into politics, but giving more opportunities for money to corrupt politics. Why create a situation where politician has to make a choice between voting in the best interest of constituents and keeping re-election funding?

Re: This will hugely backfire... (3, Insightful)

myth24601 (893486) | about 5 months ago | (#47231287)

Cantor's case shows that you still have to get people to vote for you, you can't simply buy a seat.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231129)

But it is OK for unions to do so...right...

Re:This will hugely backfire... (2)

Kohath (38547) | about 5 months ago | (#47231269)

Big leftist corporatism gets a pass. Because leftists aren't really against corporatism. Corporations and corporate power are just a bogeyman used to scare the rubes into giving away their money and their personal autonomy. But leftist corps will save you from the bogeymen. See the difference?

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 months ago | (#47231021)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Only half true. They didn't give a flying fudge until a Democrat was in office, then it became a "big gov't conspiracy". I don't think a single Republican representative voted against the Patriot Act. (To be fair, Dems also put up very little resistance.)

Re:This will hugely backfire... (2)

sweepkick (531861) | about 5 months ago | (#47231265)

Not exactly. Note that the Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the Patriot Act extension in 2011 (196 yeas vs. 31 nays), while the Democrats were largely opposed (54 yeas vs. 122 nays). http://politics.nytimes.com/co... [nytimes.com]

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

digsbo (1292334) | about 5 months ago | (#47231505)

You're referring to Republican lawmakers, GP was referring to voters. One of my biggest complaints with Republican voters is that they say they support small government, but continue to vote for lawmakers who have been doing the opposite of small government since Reagan's first term.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#47231385)

Only half true. They didn't give a flying fudge until a Democrat was in office, then it became a "big gov't conspiracy".

Well at least somebody made some noise about it. I'd rather have hypocrisy than silence.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231501)

Only one congresscritter voted against the Patriot Act back in 2001. That was Russ Feingold, a Democrat. Other than him, it passed unanimously.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (-1, Troll)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 5 months ago | (#47231053)

your average GOP voter aggressively hates immigration. (unless they are a farmer or a ranch owner living in their castle overseeing the serfs.. then they love it. (as long as their kids get to go to a private school, of course.)

Re: This will hugely backfire... (4, Insightful)

myth24601 (893486) | about 5 months ago | (#47231155)

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

Re: This will hugely backfire... (1, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#47231387)

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

No, that seems quite impossible.

Fairness would mean that everyone get to go to the same schools and have the same healthcare, no matter how rich your parents are or where they were born. I cannot see how a republican would embrace that.

Re: This will hugely backfire... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#47231405)

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

I really struggle with this one. I'm sympathetic to lots of the arguments as to why illegal immigration is indefensible.

But many of those arguments seem to also argue for the native Americans' descendents getting back all of the land their ancestors held (modulo any tribe-to-tribe land grabs we can figure out historically), and that we should return to British rule.

The only arguments I'm left with are "it's our damn land now, and stop invading it or we'll kill you.". But that's nothing like a morally principled argument. And it does nothing to address the other issues I mentioned above regarding native Americans and the British.

Re: This will hugely backfire... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#47231427)

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

Irrelevant. The only people who count are the ones shoveling money to the Republicans, and they love the cheap labor that comes from illegal immigration. By contrast, Democratic money suppliers openly admit to liking illegal immigration. Isn't it nice to have a choice?

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231191)

No one on the planet knows less about the GOP or the GOP voter than the Slashdot kindergarden of technological nerds.

Oh and make no mistake, I, and many of us know you people well, I work with you and have grown up with many of you.

And it astounds my that such a group of self described intelligent geeks would accept being led by the nose straight to the world of socialism, misery and poverty, but you lot not only wilingly go, you are just itching to hold open the doors to the cattle cars so as to hustle in the conservatives, thinking that the socialist will not then turn and kick all your asses into the trains behind us.

Brains? Logic? Reason? How does it work!!!

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 5 months ago | (#47231341)

Meh, I grew up in a very "red" part of the country, in a very conservative household, and I'd still consider myself pretty conservative -- with libertarian leanings.

Of course saying that the average GOP/conservative is against immigration is making a very large assumption, and painting with a wide brush. But despite the over the top verbiage about serfs and castles, is it wrong?

You do not see dyed in the wool lefties manning the southern border (unless it's to distribute first aid kits). Could it be that the fringe of the right and left represents an exaggerated version of the more mainstream elements?

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 5 months ago | (#47231425)

That's because they want cheap Arugula.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231513)

the world of socialism, misery and poverty

Oh, please save us, trickle down economics and government supported oppression! Where have you been all my life!

Re:This will hugely backfire... (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 5 months ago | (#47231377)

Your Average Democrat Voter sees more Democrat votes coming across the border, so they love the illegal immigrants. Crying "hate" is so much easier to gain votes than actually doing something. Don't get me wrong, both the DNC and the RNC love illegal immigrants, but for different reasons.

However, the disenfranchising of African Americans by creating another protected political class is going to hurt the DNC in the long run. The new influx of workers that will compete for low paying jobs is really going to hurt the African American community pretty hard. If I were African American, I'd be pissed off at the wage suppression and the extraordinary unemployment in my community and the complete and utter failure of either of the two big parties to address this and other related issues.

We have had several rounds of "Comprehensive Immigration reform" in the past, it hasn't solved anything, and the people keep coming, often under the impression (thanks Obama) that if they can get here, they can stay! Here's an idea, lets solve problems for AMERICAN citizens before we try to fix those that are breaking the law to come here.

And why the Liberal World savers allow the unmitigated pollution of the Deserts in the southwest, without protest, is mind numbing. The amount of garbage collecting in environmentally sensitive areas due to Illegal Immigration is atrocious. Yet the liberal world savers would rather protest Keystone Pipeline.

Personally, I don't know why ANYONE, liberal or conservative, (D) or (R) would support "immigration reform", as it is nothing but a scam to help the big businesses suppress wages, and create a new DNC voting block.

Oh wait, it all makes perfect sense now!

Re:This will hugely backfire... (3)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 5 months ago | (#47231497)

Your Average Democrat Voter sees more Democrat votes coming across the border, so they love the illegal immigrants.

Isn't the only reason that they vote for Democrats is because the Republicans want to kick them out of the country? Aren't most Hispanic immigrants pretty conservative Christians? If so, the Republicans should be able to pick up a huge number of votes from them.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 5 months ago | (#47231059)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Are these the same GOP voters who voted GW Bush Jr. into office, the self same GW Bush Jr. who got the ball rolling on the now famous NSA warrantless surveillance behemoth?

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#47231161)

Yes, the are mostly the same voters.

In their defense, Bush Jr. didn't run on the platform of increasing surveillance and decreasing government transparency. For the second term he run on a solid platform of FUD and even many non-GOP voters bought into it.

Further in their defense, TP is a delayed reaction to Bush actions. Sure, it is largely counter-productive, ineffective, lacking concrete goals and so on, but if you are objective you can't claim they are not trying to do something about this.

The NSA doesn't dick around with regular people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231297)

The NSA and CIA are spies that really don't give a fuck about the average person's day to day life. The closest to political suppression in this country, that there has been in a while, is the suspected IRS attacks on Tea Party type organizations. Imagine if Ron Paul, Monica Lewinsky, or Gennifer Flowers 'disappeared'. Quite frankly, most GOP voters are more afraid of the IRS. Corporations, on the other hand, sell data left and right, want to send out annoying advertisements, and want to figure out how to raise prices on the average person.

On a side note, I hope America keeps its expensive military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let NSA counter-intelligence do its job. Yes, there will be some terrorist attacks, but from an economic standpoint, I think it will be worth it. We should get more use out of those spies.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#47231433)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Are these the same GOP voters who voted GW Bush Jr. into office, the self same GW Bush Jr. who got the ball rolling on the now famous NSA warrantless surveillance behemoth?

G.W. Bush and Obama are not significantly different in these categories. I'm not saying Bush should be given a free pass, I'm saying both should have been impeached, removed, and perhaps hanged.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#47231079)

Only if they recognize that is the case, though. Humans are very quick to believe anything which fits nicely into their established view of the world, or the view they prefer to favor. They need to find the points which resonate. For the GOP, that would mean access to cheap labor, reduced taxes (say, for nanny/personal services), etc.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (0, Troll)

Dimwit (36756) | about 5 months ago | (#47231153)

Your average GOP voter strongly values their own privacy, but not the privacy of women, homosexuals, Muslims, or immigrants.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (-1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 5 months ago | (#47231439)

ahhh, the good old strawman approach. It works well with the logic impaired and illiterate crowd.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (4, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 5 months ago | (#47231159)

Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231247)

That was before a black democrat was elected to the Oval Office.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#47231441)

Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

You're both painting with broad brushes. And I suspect the data mining about which this article talks would help sort that out.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 5 months ago | (#47231309)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Your average [either party] voter is already mined and targeted at _every_ election, whether they know/like it or not. And somehow there hasn't been a revolt. The difference in this particular effort is really just the story's presence on Slashdot.

Re:This will hugely backfire... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#47231413)

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy

In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy and fully support the NSA spy apparatus without question. On the other hand there is a VERY small fraction of the GOP (Rand Paul is one) that is against this, but they are heavily ridiculed by the main party for this stance.

Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?

By Immigration Reform they mean more H1-Bs (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47230967)

That's right Republican voters! You too can help Microsoft and Google and Yahoo get immigration laws "reformed" so that we can stop this silly H1-B dance and REALLY start sucking up every warm body from India and the Philippines and anywhere else that thinks $14,000 a year is a hell of a lot of money!

Re:By Immigration Reform they mean more H1-Bs (2, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | about 5 months ago | (#47230999)

Wanting a high-paying job is racist and anti-diversity. You should eagerly want to give up your job to a lower-paid foreigner. We'll tell you who to vote for to make sure that happens!

hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47230973)

Why would anyone participate in a program designed to lower their pay?

hilarious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231025)

Probably the same way you get the working poor and the struggling middle class to vote Republican and against their own best interests.

Lofty Rhetoric for a Self-serving Goal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47230983)

It would be nice to debug DC, but it's all about the H1-Bs...

Missing Steps (1)

saider (177166) | about 5 months ago | (#47231001)

7. ???
8. Profit!

Re:Missing Steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231075)

6. Steal underpants

republican voters? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231017)

What about american voters? The hostility towards immigration is cultural and it's widespread and it crosses party lines.

The only reason there any debate at all over the subject (let alone the billions of dollars in research spent to "move the issue forward") is because a bunch of big corporations want to flood the market with cheap foreign labor. The other 99.999 percent of the population isn't too keen on having their wages further lowered by imported competition. These are the same companies that have been pushing like crazy to move every factory job overseas for the past 30 years. We all saw what a wonderful effect that had on factory workers.

The second one of the parties gets behind protectionism is a big way, it's going to create a tidal wave.

Re:republican voters? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231215)

"The hostility towards immigration is"

There is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS IMMIGRATION. There is however hostility towards lawbreakers and those who ignore our constitution and borders.

Why is this simple fact apprently impossible for you people to understand?

How about this. I am coming over to your apartment this evening to eat your food, fuck your wife and children and then shit all over your floor and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself. FUCK YOU if you are hostile to having GUESTS IN YOUR HOUSE.

Get it?

Re:republican voters? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231369)

No, there really *is* hostility toward immigration. Just read any news site's comments section, and see all the people spouting off racist nonsense about 'them *racial epithets* stealing our jobs!". The support for laws which made it 'legal' for a southern-border-state sheriff to stop, detain, and search anyone who had the unmitigated *gall* to do so much as *appear* to maybe be from across the border. All this, largely from people whose own family backgrounds include immigrants who came over when immigration law essentially consisted of, "welcome, tell us your name so we can add you to the census log".

Denying the existence of something which is easily visible all over the freaking place doesn't put your argument on firm footing. Finishing up with a straw-man just destroys any chance you have of being taken seriously.

Re:republican voters? (1)

FearTheDonut (2665569) | about 5 months ago | (#47231457)

I hear what you're saying about hostility towards law breakers / etc.
Now, if blanket amnesty were passed (as in, no such thing as 'Illegal Immigants'), I seriously doubt that the majority of that hostility would suddenly go away. I also can't picture those same people who are simply trying to support the law be just as passionate as protecting the new citizen / aliens rights.

Perhaps I simply lack imagination.

(Also, I don't ever expect that type of law ever to be passed, nor necessarily think that's a good thing.)

Rsults are results that are already published! (2)

stevew (4845) | about 5 months ago | (#47231035)

Why don't these guys simply pay attention to a scientific poll that was already run in Eric Cantor's district to see how successful this idea is!

Sheesh!

First time in history that Majority leader of the House has lost his seat- all because he supported some form of immigration reform.

That worked well for him didn't it.

Re:Rsults are results that are already published! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231131)

Holy hell, talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Rsults are results that are already published! (2)

Control-Z (321144) | about 5 months ago | (#47231149)

That wasn't the only reason Cantor was defeated. I voted for Brat and immigration never even crossed my mind. However much promise he had in the beginning, Cantor had been lost to DC politics. He was out of touch with his district. On the morning of the primaries he was in a coffee shop in DC.

Re:Rsults are results that are already published! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231263)

Same here, I voted for Brat and it had nothing do with either candidates stance on immigration. It had to do with Cantor no longer representing the people of his district. He didn't send a rep to my polling place. If you read or heard the smear campaign he ran against Brat is was shameless lies. I could no longer stand a man so full of lies that he thought he could lie to me about a man who lived and worked in my area and thought I wouldn't notice. I know politicians lie but we should not stand for it. Send all the liars home on both sides of the fence, and please don't kid yourself that your party doesn't have its fair share of liars whatever party that is. Keep the good ones in your party send the rest packing.

Re:Rsults are results that are already published! (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#47231279)

This is what I've heard as well. 30% approval rating throughout the district. He failed to keep up his end of the bargain as a Representative, which is to, you know, actually represent the interests and needs of the district. When two thirds of your constituents hate your guts, it's hard to win any kind of election. You can do it with one third hating your guts, one third liking you even just slightly, and the remaining folks barely knowing your name. But when an overwhelming majority of voters absolutely despise you and go to specifically vote against you (and the ones that like you assume you will win anyway so fail to turn out) it's a nice recipe for a humiliating loss.

Re:Rsults are results that are already published! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231407)

While his opponent ran on a platform of immigration deadlock, Cantor didn't lose the election because of that. Mitch McConnell was also pro amnesty and even more 'liberal' about immigration than Cantor [redstate.com] and he won by a landslide.

Cantor would have lost it to anyone with a little bit of organizational skill. He lost because he got arrogant and stopped paying attention to his constituents. They weren't pissed about immigration, they were pissed because he took them for granted as he played in DC instead of paying attention to his district.

Wrong and wrong (3, Insightful)

tyggna (1405643) | about 5 months ago | (#47231061)

Your average GOP voter is the same as your average democrat voter, with different parents and geography. I have never, personally, met more than one republican that didn't like science, and she was a nut-job. Also, republican or democrat is not the dividing line for individual privacy. That's a non-partisan issue (unless you're libertarian, in which case it's your quest in life to remove all privacy violations). I was skeptical, at first, about targeted approaches generated from big-data problems. Then I got on google fiber. There were some HUGE privacy concerns there, since they basically keep a tcpdump (minus packet contents) of all your internet history as part of your google-fiber profile for 3 days. Before that, they just knew that I was an adult male. After being on google fiber, all my internet ads changed from gaming and porno to high end computer hardware and data center products. As it turns out, I greatly prefer seeing computer hardware ads (particularly when I'm at work). Targeted approaches bred from privacy violations aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's what people do with them that's the problem. Technologies can be used effectively to make the world a better place, or abused to make it worse, it doesn't mean the technology is inherently evil. I don't think democrats would have problem being data-mined and invited to public events surrounding global warming policy, and I doubt these GOP voters will care that they were selected by a computer to be invited to take part in something that they're interested in.

Re:Wrong and wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231147)

Targeted approaches bred from privacy violations aren't necessarily a bad thing

Then I'm afraid I have to tell you that you're an idiot.

Cantor? Cantor? Cantor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231073)

Didn't they already show they don't want amnesty/!?

the truth (5, Insightful)

brennz (715237) | about 5 months ago | (#47231081)

This is really an effort by big multinationals to suppress tech job wages in the US by keeping up the H1B visa racket, and all the associated visa rackets.

http://cis.org/no-stem-shortag... [cis.org]

Is this just astroturfing for more H1Bs? (1)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#47231091)

You can probably make a lot of arguments that immigration is broken in many ways but I don't see how this automatically leads to the conclusion that the fixes for what's broken are in agreement, or, even necessarily agreement on what's broken.

On some level this feels a little like astroturfing for more H1Bs if so many big companies are behind it, maybe with a little feel-good "reform" directed at some of the hardships experienced by run-of-the-mill illegals from Latin America.

Not a Scientist's Job (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 months ago | (#47231099)

Advocacy is not a scientist's job. Scientists are to describe or model reality as best they can, not attempt to change it. Changing things with technology is "engineering", and changing people's opinions with technology is "social engineering".

Scientists should be careful not to taint their reputation for objective analysis.

Secure Border Before Amnesty (5, Insightful)

NaCh0 (6124) | about 5 months ago | (#47231109)

While Republican voters might appear to be for immigration reform by the polls, their idea of reform is vastly different than what these people are proposing.

They first want a secure border... meaning no flood of new illegals, drugs, gangs, etc.

They clearly feel lied to by democrats saying the border is the most secure ever. Just look at the 50,000 children who have just crossed since January. If you can't stop children, how do you plan on stopping the "bad guys"?

Republicans would also support more work visas -- both skilled and unskilled. They don't care about having more immigrants here. They want an orderly process which no administration has been able to provide.

Obama's blanket amnesty isn't too popular but most Republicans would be up for the debate if they were confident the problem wouldn't keep compounding itself with new illegals.

Re:Secure Border Before Amnesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231483)

Obama's blanket amnesty isn't too popular but most Republicans would be up for the debate if they were confident the problem wouldn't keep compounding itself with new illegals.
 
Yeah, I just love Obama's approach to this. Flood the US with illegals and at some point scream "Too big to fail." At that time he'll cry that it's the republicans to blame for anything wrong if the legislation that he dreamed up isn't passed immediately.
 
Democrats are going to eat it up and we're going to face a whole new level of crisis in the US that'll be paid for out of your pocket. The Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply not enforcing existing laws... kinda sounds like their gun control gambit too.

Re:Secure Border Before Amnesty (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#47231507)

You can't secure the border. It's a mythical concept that the party is selling you so you don't pay attention to the real way to shut down illegal immigration. The entire system is driven by the employment they can gain if they can get into this country. Without that employment opportunity very few would come and those that did would leave shortly after they couldn't find a job.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. And that means targeting the businesses that hire them. Most of the these businesses are very well connected politically. I know several, they are all die hard republicans that support stopping illegal immigration as long as you don't go after THEM. We could stop immigration tomorrow by actually implementing, checking and enforcing some sort of national ID or cracking down heavily on fraudulent use of SSN's. But that would mean shutting down the cheap labor and there are entrenched interests that don't want the immigration to stop and don't want it to be legal. These entrenched interests have run a very successful campaign of convincing people like you that the solution is to build the Berlin wall on the Mexican border. Well here's a wake up call for you, people routinely crossed the Berlin wall and they shot people that tried.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs. If you want to end illegal immigration and not maintain the status quo support real employer penalties and force the SSA to actually validate every SSN used for employment is being used by it's owner (this is damn near trivial).

I find this insulting (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 5 months ago | (#47231111)

As a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek myself, I find this insulting. Of course being treated as an optimization problem for data analysts is something that happens all the time in commerce and advertising. But I am turned off by multiple disingenuous elements here. Let's name a few:

1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty. The Democrat agenda will do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, but rather increase it.
2. Bringing in lots of new workers is a direct cause of lower wages and more job competition and unemployment in the USA.
3. Really rich, corporate Republicans want more labor because it benefits them fiscally.
4. Lots of Democrats in general want more immigrants because it strengthens the power of the government and the welfare state, and shifts voting demographics favorably for them (e.g. when they turn Texas blue, they win the presidency for the foreseeable future).
5. So the bottom line is that when they approach a presumably low information Republican voter, they will have to lie their little tails off about their agenda to get him/her to go along with their so-called "immigration reform".

(Do I sound a little mad?)

Re:I find this insulting (2, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#47231229)

This is why they have the groovy, left-leaning longhair on the web page.

They want to make this into a warm-and-fuzzy progressive issue on how cruel our current immigration system is on children, families and their Chihuahuas, as well as how "stupid" it is because all the super-smart PhDs in nuclear physics who can't get a green card but reallyreally want to come help us advance our build-out of next-generation nuclear power.

Most economists feed into the rich, corporate Republican arguments by saying that lots of immigrants means economic growth, which may be true, but they never seem to get around to the costs associated with bulk-importing lots of low-wage labor which won't be buying Obamacare policies.

What surprises me more than anything else is the total silence by Black congressional leadership on "immigration reform" -- given that the low levels of educational attainment and extremely high levels of unemployment in the black community, aren't they the really big losers in the immigration reform game?

Re:I find this insulting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231285)

1. You can't have immigration reform without amnesty. It wouldn't be ilegal after reform now would it?

2. Illegals don't have to be paid a mimumum wage. America desperately needs to raise the minumum wage, something Republcians are against.

3. No it doesn't. Rich businessmen want the least amount of workers their business requires.

4. No they don't. Nobody likes higher taxes. Democrats want people to be trated like actual people, and not second class citizens. Republicans want cheap slave labor.

5. Most Republicans are low information voters, that's why they vote Republican.

Re:I find this insulting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231325)

I'm "a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek" myself. I'm also really frustrated with the immigration status quo.
Realistically speaking, it's impossible to fix our immigration problems without some form of amnesty. All of the bad consequences just keep on keeping on, as long as the millions of illegals stay illegal. They aren't going to leave; we have to legalize them. Obviously that's not sufficient, but it's sure as hell necessary.

Re:I find this insulting (2)

halivar (535827) | about 5 months ago | (#47231503)

The problem is that we're talking amnesty BEFORE we talk border security, hence the current gold rush of illegal immigrants to get in on the action. I want amnesty completely off the table until we secure the border not just to stem the economic disaster of having all these illegal immigrants we can't take care of, but the humanitarian disaster that it's becoming, as well.

Re:I find this insulting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231335)

I disagree with nearly everything you wrote, conclusions, causes, effects, etc. But especially this one:

> 1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty

No. It is about H1B.

Everything else is just window dressing [wikipedia.org] designed to appeal to the stereotypes of the parties - amnesty for democrats and "employment verification" and "border security" for republicans.

One last point - "employment verification" ought to be abhorrent to EVERYONE. They are using fear of immigrants to change our entire economy into a permission culture - you can't work if you don't get permission from the government (nominally the executive branch). If you are a republican imagine having to get permission from Obama in order to feed your family, same thing for democrats imagine getting permission from Bush.

A system like this will be used to extra-judicially abuse people that the powerful don't like. They may not be able to put you in jail, but they will be able to keep you from supporting yourself and your family just by putting your name on a list in the bowels of a computer somewhere. Just look at all the abuses of the no-fly list [ccrjustice.org] and less than 1% of the population flies in any given week, but 70%+ has to work every week. People never think it will happen to them, until it does.

Re:I find this insulting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231353)

im surprised you remember to breathe and swallow.

I just don't answer my phone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231115)

Delete email messages from folk I don't recognize either. The silent majority is much like me so it won't help in the final polls. :)

Double-standard and misunderstanding of politics.. (4, Insightful)

Darlok (131116) | about 5 months ago | (#47231123)

So while I'm not a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I do note amongst the young technorati something of a double-standard. Surveillance, big data and privacy violations are bad when they're used to infringe social rights, but GOOD when they're used to attack people perceived as infringing social rights... C'est la vie.

But more to the point, single-issue activists ALWAYS misunderstand the voting habits of multi-issue voters. Particularly Republicans, who are not just straight-up conservatives as they are often portrayed, but often socially liberal _fiscal_ conservatives who choose not to vote based on social policy. Turning multi-issue swing voters into single-issue activists isn't a straight-forward process, even if you identify who they are.

Finally, this kind of effort makes the assumption that such voters are simply awaiting the right contact or motivation to write their congressperson and demand action. Whereas, in reality, while activists often view the disengaged as "against the cause", the reality is, in most instances, such voters just don't care about that cause.

Re:Double-standard and misunderstanding of politic (4, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#47231395)

True fiscal conservatism is often at odds with social conservatism. True fiscal conservatism isn't a bad thing - I think many Dems would actually lean more toward a purely fiscally based Republican party, but the social issues keep everyone split into their respective camps despite the similarities in fiscal policy. For example, a true free market conservative has no problem with abortion clinics. They provide a service for which there is a demand. No federal dollars are permitted to go to abortion services, although the clinics also provide everything from well baby services to OB/GYN services in rural areas that require some community funding to fully support (since it's not profitable to operate a small clinic in the middle of nowhere that only half the population + children will use.) Still, it makes monetary sense to fund those clinics at nominal levels rather than have pregnant women dying because they were unaware of ectopic pregnancies, so again, it's government money well spent. A social conservative looks at the clinic though and sees a horrible infestation of sin upon the world and has the urge to bomb it.

Another example would be the mandatory drug testing put in place in Florida for food stamp benefits. After the pilot program in which less than 2% of those tested failed the drug test and were denied benefits, it became clear that the state was losing money and the program should have been halted. (I believe it cost them $100,000 more than they saved to test everyone, even charging some people a fee for the test.) A business minded fiscal conservative would have killed the program because it cost more than it saved. A social conservative would freak out because The Undeserving could get free food if the program was cancelled.

It's this divide in thought between the two wings of the party that drives the fiscally conservative Democrats crazy. They might be willing to compromise with the Republican fiscal wing on some things, but the social wings of either party cannot compromise because they each think the other is Satan.

Infer from sparse data (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | about 5 months ago | (#47231137)

Just from the summary, I will infer that this entire discussion will be inferences made with sparse data.

Clarify: This is About H1B Expansion (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 5 months ago | (#47231157)

Second paragraph on the FWD.us page:

Our outdated immigration system does not meet Americaâ(TM)s workforce needs in a global economy. We have a system that tells talented immigrants that we don't welcome their contributions. It is a system that cannot keep the United States competitive in a global economy. The time is now for Congress to act on meaningful immigration reform that boosts the American economy and does right by American families.

This is not about amnesty for illegals, this is about H1B expansion.

Re:Clarify: This is About H1B Expansion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231379)

Mod parent up.

And the scientists? (4, Insightful)

fey000 (1374173) | about 5 months ago | (#47231167)

And then presumably the scientists get replaced by cheaper H1B "scientists"?

Illegal Immigration IS a bad idea, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231169)

Anyone who is for illegal immigration is either:

A) nit witted
B) naive
C) unrealistically optimistic
D) un-American
E) All of the above

Wow. Just . . . wow. (0)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47231195)

If it were "black" or "hispanic" or "gay" or "Muslim" or "" instead of "Republicans", there'd be hell to pay.

Oh, wait - hell is a Christian invention. Damned crafty of 'em, incidentally.

"Growth hacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231197)

The left, using possibly illegal, ethically questionable and morally dubious tactics pioneered by the depravity in Silicon Valley? I thought the idea was to not become the monster you're trying to slay.

jibes perfectly, hand in glove (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 5 months ago | (#47231217)

good ol' voter pattern research to hound the rascals out. everybody does it these days, not just the parties.

Forgot a couple things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231261)

Forgot:
Step 5: ???
Step 6: PROFIT!

Surveillance by Govt, Corporations ... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 months ago | (#47231273)

Surveillance by government is scary because the power and resources of the government. Data collection by large private corporations is scary because these corporations have privacy rights and their profit motive to get you every which way and how. Data collection of underfunded powerless advocacy group should not be compared to the first two.

Nice, but money is the root problem here (2)

FridayBob (619244) | about 5 months ago | (#47231305)

This sounds like an interesting method by which individual problems, such as immigration reform, might be solved, but we must recognize that the root cause of disfunction in DC today is money; that bribery in US politics is now legal and that the politicians see it as the norm. As a result, they -- particularly those in the federal government -- almost never care about what their constituents think: in 94-95% of all cases all they have to do is raise more money than their political opponents so that they can outspend them all in every next election.

When seen in this light, it becomes clear that issues such as immigration reform are not going to be solved unless those who fund our politicians also agree. Those donors are big corporations and very rich people, and in this case they seem to think that immigration reform will likely lead to higher wages and thus less profit, so they will tell the politicians to vote aginst any such reform or else their money will diverted to the next politician in line who will vote against it. The politicians think they have no choice in the matter, but that's also how they got elected in the first place (by doing what their donors told them to do).

So, anyone who thinks that the politicians they vote for should be acting primarily in the interests of their constituents, instead of the rich and powerful, should realize that we first all need to act together to get money our of politics. And it can be done! [wolf-pac.com] After that DC will once again start to get things done.

Re:Nice, but money is the root problem here (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 months ago | (#47231421)

The solution is to vote out your incumbent. Period. It's the only way to get Congress to listen to us.

Scumbags (4, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 5 months ago | (#47231327)

A transparently cynical ploy to increase their pipeline of Asian / Indian H1B visa slave labor. DIAF.

Good Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231331)

Why do so many people ignore those of us who are leftists and extremely OPPOSED to immigration reform? I do not in any way support making it easier for businesses to import poverty into the United States as a tool for suppressing wage growth. You know why real wages haven't grown much in the last 40 years? Importing poverty is why. Good luck targeting Republicans.

Welcome to the thug army (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47231337)

The "good", young, hip little liberals have, in the name of being "good", made themselves into a volunteer army of porpagandists and manipulatos in the service of big government and giant multi-billion-dollar multi-mational corporations who are desperate to push down wages of the middle class. Lenni Riefenstahl would be so very proud of them and their support for fascism.

Someday, when they realize just how completely they were duped into helping manipulate people into supporting evil policies that are tearing the country apart and doing real severe harm to middle class families, for the banefit of multi-billionares like Zuckerberg, all across the country some of them will have the common decency to be ashamed. Unfortunately, the supremely morally-blind and fiscally-ignorant among them will continue to call for "taxing the rich" (never noticing that those tax hikes only hit the middle class and are always dodged by Zuck, Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Buffet, etc), screeching about "evil rich Republicans", and falling into the Alinsky-predicted path of the stupid - calling for more and more government to "solve" the problems that very government is creating to cause the problems that drive the stupid into its "loving embrace" in the first place...

Feckless tools of big business (3, Insightful)

BobandMax (95054) | about 5 months ago | (#47231435)

These folks simply do not understand that the underlying goal is to drive U.S. wages to third world levels by introducing large labor surpluses. Not just unskilled/low skill labor, either. They want to greatly expand work visas for skilled and highly skilled workers to reduce labor costs and increase profits. Anyone who does not understand this needs to take some J.C. basic Economics courses. And, for those who talk about expanding the economy to accommodate millions of new workers; how's that working for you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?