Election 2019 - Hide in a fridge to win - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

A/B testing election messages:

https://tristanhotham.com/2019/11/12/what-is-a-b-testing-examples-from-the-liberal-democrat-conservative-and-labour-2019-election-campaigns/

Yossarian

Not read the whole thing yet, but A/B testing is something we use constantly at the Graun. Not sure if it’s all that nefarious, but thought it might be of interest anyway.

Diluted Dante

No, unlike the Lib Dems it's not all that nefarious.

poprock

Yossarian wrote:

Not sure if it’s all that nefarious …

Yeah, A/B testing in science dates back to at least the 1700s and in marketing specifically back to at least the early 1900s.

This is just explaining how it’s really come into its own online – and like most of the chatter about modern marketing it really should explain that this isn’t restricted to Facebook, but is standard practice almost everywhere.

As you say though, it’s still interesting to see more transparency around – and it’s always informative to see examples of what messages the various parties are playing around with.

JonB

Lib Dem candidate stands aside to avoid 'nightmare' of Tory win
Tim Walker drops out in Labour seat of Canterbury to avoid dividing pro-remain vote.

This is good to see, especially in Canterbury. Hopefully the party don't choose another candidate. And hopefully it inspires a few more Lib Dem or Labour candidates who have no chance to step aside in marginals.

LarryDavid

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/11/best-for-britain-and-the-spyware-scandal

I think Kaz mentioned this site and it’s dodgy advice (vote Lib Dem, even when they don’t stand a chance) but I assumed it was a simple cock up rather than anything malicious.

Yossarian

I’ve seen a few bits of analysis of the results from that site and it’s doesn’t appear quite as off as was first suggested. It recommends voting Labour in far more seats than Lib Dem (over 300 for Labour, IIRC) with only a few Lib Dems in Labour 2nd place seats, and is based on recent MRP polling (of the type that was the only poll that predicted a hung parliament in 2017) rather than previous election results.

I’m not saying it’s going to be 100% accurate or anything, but I think that dismissing it because it doesn’t show what you expect based on what happened at the last election may be missing what it’s trying to do.

Diluted Dante

JonB wrote:

Lib Dem candidate stands aside to avoid 'nightmare' of Tory win
Tim Walker drops out in Labour seat of Canterbury to avoid dividing pro-remain vote.

This is good to see, especially in Canterbury. Hopefully the party don't choose another candidate. And hopefully it inspires a few more Lib Dem or Labour candidates who have no chance to step aside in marginals.

The Lib Dems have already announced they will stand another candidate.

LarryDavid

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve seen a few bits of analysis of the results from that site and it’s doesn’t appear quite as off as was first suggested. It recommends voting Labour in far more seats than Lib Dem (over 300 for Labour, IIRC) with only a few Lib Dems in Labour 2nd place seats, and is based on recent MRP polling (of the type that was the only poll that predicted a hung parliament in 2017) rather than previous election results.

I’m not saying it’s going to be 100% accurate or anything, but I think that dismissing it because it doesn’t show what you expect based on what happened at the last election may be missing what it’s trying to do.

What it’s trying to do is the question though.

Like most people I assumed the best way of tactical voting was to remove the candidate you don’t want (Tory generally, given it’s a leave-affiliated campaign) and vote for the person with the best chance of beating them/keeping them out.

If this site is advising people differently, based on their innovative new polling logic or not, then it seems like they’re muddying the waters and actively dividing the vote. Which the cynical might say was probably the entire point.

I could be wrong, obviously.

Yossarian

There are very few anomalous outcomes for the 650-odd seats, which could well be down to local factors changing how people are planning to vote. And Best for Britain have been an active pro-remain pressure group for quite some time, they aren’t going to be trying to split the vote to bring about an outcome that they’ve been campaigning against for years.

As I say, they could well be wrong in their analysis (which isn’t that innovative or new, as I say, it’s based on techniques created by YouGov in 2017), but I don’t think they’re trying to actively undermine Labour or remain more generally.

LarryDavid

Well, whatever. The article implies some of the people originally behind the group have stood aside sometime ago. I don’t know, just putting it out there as a possibility.

In other news:

EJNOpKGXkAEESMT?format=jpg&name=medium

Hahaha.

JonB

Lots of bright red. 'Labour'. Small print containing the name of the party you're actually representing.

That's the change we need.

Paul the sparky

I wonder why he gapes?

Diluted Dante

It's the amount of bullshit that continuously spews from him.

JonB

Diluted Dante wrote:

Lib Dem candidate stands aside to avoid 'nightmare' of Tory win Tim Walker drops out in Labour seat of Canterbury to avoid dividing pro-remain vote. This is good to see, especially in Canterbury. Hopefully the party don't choose another candidate. And hopefully it inspires a few more Lib Dem or Labour candidates who have no chance to step aside in marginals.

The Lib Dems have already announced they will stand another candidate.

And disciplining Walker. They really are starting to piss off remainers, and it's likely to backfire on them.

JMW

Usual undermining John Crace bullshit promoted by the Guardian yesterday - however, it does seem that a large proportion of the commenters are waking up to how stupid it is. Not ‘picked’ comments though, obviously, just the highest-voted ones.

Yossarian

LarryDavid wrote:

Well, whatever. The article implies some of the people originally behind the group have stood aside sometime ago. I don’t know, just putting it out there as a possibility.

In other news:

Hahaha.

Just stumbled across this:

https://twitter.com/2reel2politik/status/1190040363555282947?s=21

Diluted Dante

Magic Magid calling on Green candidates to stand down in Lab/Tory marginals.

As Green Party candidacies are a local party issue, and Magid is well liked and respected, there is a real possibility a lot of the candidates will.

Armitage_Shankburn

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve seen a few bits of analysis of the results from that site and it’s doesn’t appear quite as off as was first suggested. It recommends voting Labour in far more seats than Lib Dem (over 300 for Labour, IIRC) with only a few Lib Dems in Labour 2nd place seats, and is based on recent MRP polling (of the type that was the only poll that predicted a hung parliament in 2017) rather than previous election results.

I’m not saying it’s going to be 100% accurate or anything, but I think that dismissing it because it doesn’t show what you expect based on what happened at the last election may be missing what it’s trying to do.

I've seen this post before. It's totally irrelevant.

What's the ratio of L v LD recommendations in marginal seats? That's the real question.

jdanielp

Diluted Dante wrote:

Magid Magid calling on Green candidates to stand down in Lab/Tory marginals. As Green Party candidacies are a local party issue, and Magid is well liked and respected, there is a real possibility a lot of the candidates will.

Interesting. We do our own thing up in Scotland though so I don't imagine this will change anything up here.

Diluted Dante

Are you set up in the same decentralised way, or can the national party impose candidates?

jdanielp

Diluted Dante wrote:

Are you set up in the same decentralised way, or can the national party impose candidates?

Decentralised. The SNP shouldn't be in much trouble in any case, but they're still complaining where we're standing.

Diluted Dante

I don't think the SNP have much to worry about to be fair. Aside from Stirling, you don't appear to be standing in any of the Tory held seats, and I doubt they will lose any to them.

Yossarian

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve seen a few bits of analysis of the results from that site and it’s doesn’t appear quite as off as was first suggested. It recommends voting Labour in far more seats than Lib Dem (over 300 for Labour, IIRC) with only a few Lib Dems in Labour 2nd place seats, and is based on recent MRP polling (of the type that was the only poll that predicted a hung parliament in 2017) rather than previous election results.

I’m not saying it’s going to be 100% accurate or anything, but I think that dismissing it because it doesn’t show what you expect based on what happened at the last election may be missing what it’s trying to do.

I've seen this post before. It's totally irrelevant.

What's the ratio of L v LD recommendations in marginal seats? That's the real question.

I don’t recall. My point with it was more that I think that this seems to me that it’s well intentioned at least and while the methodology behind it might not be accurate, I think it probably doesn’t deserve to be dismissed out of hand, that’s all.

Armitage_Shankburn

Yossarian wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I’ve seen a few bits of analysis of the results from that site and it’s doesn’t appear quite as off as was first suggested. It recommends voting Labour in far more seats than Lib Dem (over 300 for Labour, IIRC) with only a few Lib Dems in Labour 2nd place seats, and is based on recent MRP polling (of the type that was the only poll that predicted a hung parliament in 2017) rather than previous election results.

I’m not saying it’s going to be 100% accurate or anything, but I think that dismissing it because it doesn’t show what you expect based on what happened at the last election may be missing what it’s trying to do.

I've seen this post before. It's totally irrelevant.

What's the ratio of L v LD recommendations in marginal seats? That's the real question.

I don’t recall. My point with it was more that I think that this seems to me that it’s well intentioned at least and while the methodology behind it might not be accurate, I think it probably doesn’t deserve to be dismissed out of hand, that’s all.

How is totally irrelevant data evidence that it is well intentioned?

Yossarian

I’m not convinced that it is totally irrelevant. It might well be but I’m just yet to see anything that convinces me that it is. The argument that traditional loyalties might be breaking down and that past elections may not be a good indicator of what might happen in the next election is something which I think may have merit and this appears to be an attempt to account for that. This could well be wrong, but I’m yet to see anything which disproves it beyond knee jerk reactions on the internet. If you’ve got something a bit more substantive about this, I’m happy to engage with it.

Armitage_Shankburn

I'm not the one referring to data, you are. You're not the one who has to be convinced. If you post data, twice, you must explain its relevance, convince the reader. The onus is on you.

Tactical voting is about marginal, or winnable seats - where tactical voting can make a difference. None of what you wrote explains or relates to the stat you threw at us, twice. Why's that stat a relevant counter to someone pointing out it's recommending voting lib dem in Hendon, a 48/46/2 Tory seat?

Funkstain

Surely the bigger point is that anything which reduces the chances of kicking out the utter turds in government, and their damaging WAB, is by definition complicit in turd retention?

If a tactical voting website in any way suggests voting for a third-placed party, in any constituency where there’s a chance of the tories getting in or retaining a seat, they should be condemned as what they are: charlatans damaging this country.

Yossarian

It looks to me from a bit of digging that they aren’t backing Labour in Hendon because, from what I can tell, the Labour candidate there hasn’t come out in support of a people’s vote or remain.

There was this from him:

https://labourlist.org/2018/12/we-want-an-election-now-but-what-would-labours-manifesto-say-on-brexit/

Certainly an arguable choice in this situation, but that doesn’t mean that they have nothing to offer. If you are in a constituency where you have a choice of candidates who support a people’s vote or even remain, then their polling may help you make a decision.

Yossarian

Funkstain wrote:

Surely the bigger point is that anything which reduces the chances of kicking out the utter turds in government, and their damaging WAB, is by definition complicit in turd retention?

If a tactical voting website in any way suggests voting for a third-placed party, in any constituency where there’s a chance of the tories getting in or retaining a seat, they should be condemned as what they are: charlatans damaging this country.

That’s a perfectly reasonable argument.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories