An illustration of the Internet and world wide web. (Ramcreations, Shutterstock)OPINION: For years, the Silicon Valley mantra was “The Internet changes everything.” These days it’s more accurate to say “The Internet is always changing.” That’s why the conventional wisdom about online ad targeting and other digital means of finding voters can easily slip out of date. Things are always changing.
An illustration using hard-drawn images on green data paper. (Maksim Kabakou, via Shutterstock)This past election cycle rewrote the rules for digital campaigning. Most media coverage, especially after the election, has focused on how a brand of digital terrorism – viral campaigns based on fake news stories, fueled by fake social media accounts and hacked computers – put before voters a mix of negative messages and falsehoods that had a huge impact on the U.S. presidential campaign.
Campaign data expert Paul Mitchell. Let’s talk data: California political numbers cruncher Paul Mitchell sits down with Capitol Weekly Editor John Howard to chat about all things digital. Consider this: The past election cycle rewrote the rules for digital campaigning. Most media coverage, especially after the election, has focused on what Paul calls in today’s CA120 column “digital terrorism” – viral campaigns based on fake news stories, fueled by fake social media accounts and hacked computers.
Latinos taking the Pledge of Allegiance in Los Angeles. (Photo: Joseph Sohm)To set the record straight, we are talking about full U.S. citizens, not some fictional “illegal” voters. There are 3.8 million foreign born voters on the California voter file, including 1.4 million born in Latin America. Each of these has had their eligibility verified by their county registrars, and by either the Social Security Administration, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, or with a valid state identification (generally a driver’s license) presented at their polling place the first time they vote.
Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data, Inc. (Photo: Tim FosterCapitol Weekly’s John Howard and Tim Foster take the Podcast over to their home away from home — Naked Coffee — for a chat with data whiz and CA120 columnist Paul Mitchell. Paul expands on the ideas in his latest column, breaks down California’s vote in 2016 (now that the final numbers are in) and offers his thoughts on what’s in store for 2018 and beyond.
(Illustration: Tim Foster, Capitol Weekly)From neighbors to family members to local coffee shop baristas, the number one question I’ve received since Nov. 8 is “How did that happen?” Donald Trump’s come-from-behind win shocked about everyone in the political world. Even his own political team. Even Hillary Clinton’s own political team.
A Californian casts a ballot. (Photo: Vepar5 via Shutterstock)OPINION: All the votes from the June primary elections are finally counted. We now have the second highest number of votes—more than 8.5 million—ever cast in a California statewide primary. While this is good news for our communities and for the state, we have a lot more work to do when it comes to ensuring that more Californians have a say in the political process.
Photo illustration: Africa Studio, via Shutterstock.OPINION: Imagine enjoying your summer holiday vacation only to learn that special interest lawmakers beholden to the California Teachers Association are voting to close down your child’s school. As a parent, you’ve never received any school closure information or a single news report.
Photo illustration: Vaclav Mach, via Shutterstock)The Safety For All campaign made a recent statement about the prevalence of gun dealers in California. It’s a colorful claim like Obama’s, but has a bit more hard data to back it up. “There are at least twice as many licensed firearm dealers in California as there are McDonald’s,” the campaign’s spokesman said in recent email.
A portion of California's June 7 ballot. (Photo: Tim Foster/Capitol Weekly)When nonpartisan voters were asked how, exactly, they were going to get a Democratic ballot, we saw evidence of widespread confusion. Nearly 60% of those surveyed either incorrectly thought that the Democratic candidates would be on their ballot — as happens in other open primary contests — or they weren’t sure how to vote in the Democratic presidential race.