It was the end of a tumultuous month for US President Donald Trump’s White House. A redacted version of a report by US special counsel Robert Mueller had been released to the public.
Democratic committee leaders were threatening subpoenas. The special counsel had broken his silence to criticize the US attorney general’s handling of the report’s release.
In Washington, Trump’s presidency was under as much pressure as ever.
Illustration: Yusha
However, on Facebook, the Trump circle was asserting another reality.
“While Democrats have spent the last two years wasting your money on a bogus WITCH HUNT that found NO COLLUSION, President Trump has been fighting for YOU,” read the copy in Facebook advertisements run by Trump’s re-election campaign on April 30. “The Democratic Party has sunk so low that they’re embracing Anti Semite [US Representative] Ilhan Omar, who recently minimized the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as ‘some people did something.’ Their party is a disgrace.”
The ads were notable for a number of reasons.
They asked users to donate prior to a “CRUCIAL fundraising deadline” even though the next major deadline would not come until June 30, employing a time-tested marketing trick to create a false sense of urgency.
They were numerous, with more than 200 minor variations of the advertisements running.
They were topical and negative, feeding an intensely divisive controversy earlier that month over out-of-context remarks made by a Muslim US representative about post-9/11 Islamophobia rather than making an affirmative case for Trump’s re-election.
They targeted older Facebook users across the US, in defiance of conventional wisdom about who responds to social media campaigning.
All in all, the advertisements epitomized the unprecedented nature of the massive social media campaign being waged by Trump more than 500 days before the US presidential election next year.
“They’re way ahead of the field this time,” said Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist. “They’re building their infrastructure and list and online fundraising more than a year before the election, even without any sort of credible challenge on the right.”
“They are not only better positioned than the Trump campaign was in 2015, but in a much better place than any of the Democrats right now,” Wilson said.
That Trump’s re-election campaign would go all-in on digital became clear in February last year, when Brad Parscale was appointed campaign director.
Parscale was a digital marketing consultant with little political experience when he was tapped to run Trump’s 2016 online operation. He was not shy about taking credit for Trump’s unlikely presidential victory, touting the sophistication of his Facebook strategy, which he said involved running as many as 60,000 advertisement variants at a time, taking the concept of A/B testing to extremes.
In many ways, that 2016 presidential campaign never ended. Trump filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration and has held dozens of campaign rallies since. Evidence of this permanent campaign is even more apparent online.
The Trump campaign’s spending on Facebook and Google advertisements leading up to last year’s midterm elections dwarfed every other candidate besides Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — and Trump was not even on the ballot.
In the first six months of this year, Trump spent more than US$11.1 million on Facebook and Google advertisements alone, according to disclosures by the social media companies.
For the corresponding six months of the most recent presidential race with an incumbent — January through June 2011 — former US president Barack Obama spent US$850,000 on online advertising, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
A Trump campaign official, who insisted on speaking on background, offered only vague generalities about the current iteration of the digital campaign.
He said it was rooted in a Silicon Valley mindset and was akin to high-frequency trading.
He described the format of the ads as “direct response marketing,” meaning that they are designed to induce a response — either a donation, an e-mail signup, or a mobile phone signup — from the target.
The official denied a Bloomberg report that the 2016 campaign used Facebook ads as part of a voter suppression effort designed to dampen enthusiasm among likely Democratic voters, and refused to commit not to run such advertisements in the 2020 campaign.
An analysis of the content and targeting of Trump presidential campaign advertisements by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic digital campaigning firm that has built an interactive tool to compare spending across campaigns, found that more than half (54 percent) of Trump’s advertisements have mentioned immigration issues and nearly half (44 percent) are targeting voters over the age of 65.
The campaign’s demographic and geographical targeting so far has not been particularly out of the ordinary, Bully Pulpit partner Mike Schneider said.
However, the general tone of the advertisements has been surprisingly reactive and negative, he said.
Since Facebook began archiving political advertisements in May last year, Trump has run about 26,000 that mention “fake news”; 14,000 that reference the Mexican border; and 3,600 that include the phrase “witch hunt,” the Guardian found.
Advertisements hawking an “executive membership card” (2,700) appear to be more common than those that address issues such as healthcare.
Wilson said that such metrics reveal more about what topics and communication styles resonate with Trump voters on Facebook than they do about the overall message of the campaign.
“The campaign is putting out messages that are going to convert the most donors and supporters at the lowest cost possible,” he said.
“The only thing we can read into Facebook advertising is what’s working on Facebook. There is a science and art to driving conversions on Facebook, and that is separate to a broader political strategy. It’s in harmony, but it’s not wagging the dog,” he said.
While Trump might be dominating the digital field at this stage, his tactics are not particularly groundbreaking, several experts told the Guardian.
His opponents simply have not fully gotten into the game yet.
“I don’t think Trump’s campaign is incredibly sophisticated compared to corporations and how they use digital. It’s just that politics is way behind,” said Jessica Alter, cofounder of Tech for Campaigns, a volunteer organization that is connecting Silicon Valley tech talent with Democratic campaigns.
“Trump spent 44 percent of his media budget on digital. Other campaigns are closer to 6 to 8 percent. Industry standard for corporations is 54 percent. It starts there,” she said.
Alter’s organization undertook a comprehensive analysis of the political advertisements run by both parties in the midterms. Among other things, their findings help explain why the Trump campaign is targeting older people.
“There’s this myth that digital is for young people,” Alter said. “People 55 years and older have a three times higher propensity to click on a digital ad than the younger generation.”
That higher click rate means more donations, more e-mail addresses and more cellphone numbers, all of which are key to staying competitive and, 16 months from now, turning out the vote.
Still, the concerns are many. Digital campaign advertisements, and the data used to target them at tiny subsets of the electorate, were an important part of the Russian troll farm’s efforts to influence the 2016 election, as well as the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The ability to micro-target various groups with finely tuned messages pushes campaigns toward anti-democratic behavior, said Anthony Nadler, an associate professor of media and communication studies at Ursinus College.
Nadler compared the use of A/B testing on users — whose reaction to an advertisement is recorded whether they click on it or not — to turning Facebook users into “unwitting subjects in what is more or less psychological testing.”
“It has a sort of corrupting influence, turning campaigns as a whole toward trying to mobilize people in very niche ways, trying to influence people in a very niche way and trying to demonize the other side,” Nadler said.
Nadler has called for a ban on A/B testing in online digital campaigning, a somewhat far-fetched proposal that would require campaigns to stick to a single version of an advertisement, rather than constantly test minor variations on users.
While companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have made it easier following the 2016 election to monitor what campaigns are doing on their platforms by setting up new public transparency tools to monitor the advertisements campaigns are putting out on their platforms, those tools would not be a true bulwark against the kind of dirty tricks that Russia’s Internet Research Agency deployed in 2016, Nadler said.
“Dark money groups are particularly dangerous because they have no reputation to protect,” he said, referring to not-for-profit organizations that can engage in political campaigning without disclosing the source of their funding.
Although Facebook now requires political advertisements to disclose the name of the organization funding the advertisements, Nadler said that it is “pretty easy” for motivated bad actors to create new not-for-profit groups through which to funnel money for campaigning.
“I think they’re going to be the pioneers of pushing these tactics to the furthest reaches,” he said.
These strategies could include efforts to create division or suppress enthusiasm within the opposition.
A dark money group could even pose as being part of a certain political coalition, without it being true, as the Russian troll groups did.
“As opposed to persuading individual voters, you can just get certain groups of people to not be too excited, or cynical and sour,” Nadler said.
“That matters, and that’s what social media can do,” he said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers