The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President

The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President

DISCLAIMER: The link above may or may not be behind a pay wall. I was able to read it without issue, but I may have been using one of my "free" articles for the month...

What I was seeing was a strategy that has been deployed by illiberal political leaders around the world. Rather than shutting down dissenting voices, these leaders have learned to harness the democratizing power of social media for their own purposes—jamming the signals, sowing confusion. They no longer need to silence the dissident shouting in the streets; they can use a megaphone to drown him out. Scholars have a name for this: censorship through noise.

Every presidential campaign sees its share of spin and misdirection, but this year’s contest promises to be different. In conversations with political strategists and other experts, a dystopian picture of the general election comes into view—one shaped by coordinated bot attacks, Potemkin local-news sites, micro-targeted fearmongering, and anonymous mass texting. Both parties will have these tools at their disposal. But in the hands of a president who lies constantly, who traffics in conspiracy theories, and who readily manipulates the levers of government for his own gain, their potential to wreak havoc is enormous.

The Trump campaign is planning to spend more than $1 billion, and it will be aided by a vast coalition of partisan media, outside political groups, and enterprising freelance operatives. These pro-Trump forces are poised to wage what could be the most extensive disinformation campaign in U.S. history. Whether or not it succeeds in reelecting the president, the wreckage it leaves behind could be irreparable.

Every campaign seeks out every advantage it can get. Some people are more successful than others at eking out every last drop from every dollar spent on the campaign.

The Obama campaign pioneered these types of tactics in 2008. The Trump campaign turned it up to 11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging either campaign. Only a fool would turn their back on tactics that could give them such a disproportionate advantage. Morally dubious? Most assuredly. But wrong? Maybe not.

In today's day and age it is up to the "consumer" to try and question the advertising they are exposed to on a daily basis. Some things cannot be forgotten:

1. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
2. If it is free, YOU are the product.
3. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
4. Buyer Beware!

And believe me, if you see any type of advertisement, you are the "target" and the "consumer" whether you want to be or not. Once seen, it cannot be unseen.

The use of psychology and micro-targeting of advertising (whether political or retail) is a very smart move on the part of the people trying to woo "customers". The efficacy of the advertising dollar is paramount in these cases. Spend the least amount for the biggest impact.

So how do we fight against being swayed by this type of tactic? I have no idea. Remain vigilant. Try to see what they are trying to "make" you see. Be aware that it is happening.

"The first step in avoiding a trap, is knowing of its existence." - Thufir Hawat, Mentat, Dune by Frank Herbert.

a reply to: BomSquad

so sorta like the dems did with impeachment. tit for tat.

So does that means that if I pay less taxes and got a 20% raise this year is in reality "Smoke".....Darn!!!

So now they're saying Trump is going to outspend and buy the Presidency.

Even though in 2016 Hillary spent over double what Trump did. Didn't hear one liberal say Hillary was trying to "buy" the presidency.

Well, Trump spent just over half of the money on his 2016 campaign than Hillary did, I think Trump's total was about four hundred million while Hillarys was over seven hundred fifty million.

This year is supposed to be bigger on both sides, so I would expect Trump's campaign will cost maybe six hundred million while the Dems will be around a billion. But when Hillary lost, promising that she can't lose, she probably alienated some of her big foreign donors. She also talked the donors into giving her campaign money at the expense of supplying the DNC, so it messed up the states gaining congressmen and weakened the party overall. So maybe the Dems will not be hitting a billion after all, maybe they won't be able to con Democrats into giving the Democratic party lots of contributions. I think that maybe the whole idea of the impeachment was to increase campaign contributions by Democrats to fight the evil orange man.

So, my guess would be six hundred million apiece fir each of the two parties, the asses and elephants.

a reply to: BomSquad

So how do we fight against being swayed by this type of tactic? I have no idea. Remain vigilant. Try to see what they are trying to "make" you see. Be aware that it is happening.

It appears to be an online magazine where it might host a comment section?
A pay to play? Censoring?

Disengage and stop helping them distribute and circulate their bs?

6 companies distribute 90% of media- they don't deserve our patronage, go belly up sooner rather than later.

a reply to: BomSquad

Once seen, it cannot be unseen.

But it can be, and often is, forgotten. I challenge anyone to remember ONE political ad outside of a weeklong sized bubble.

So how do we fight against being swayed by this type of tactic?

I watch what the President says, I watch how he reacts. I watch what his opponents say. I watch how they react.

I don't watch opinion news or any news that uses the "roundtable" format (most do)

I also am not on Facebook and the only time I see a political ad it's on Youtube... which I promptly skip.


So... that's how you fight being swayed. Stop listening to opinions and just go to the source. That's not near as entertaining, but that shouldn't be what politics is about.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: BomSquad

So how do we fight against being swayed by this type of tactic? I have no idea. Remain vigilant. Try to see what they are trying to "make" you see. Be aware that it is happening.

It appears to be an online magazine where it might host a comment section?
A pay to play? Censoring?

Disengage and stop helping them distribute and circulate their bs?

6 companies distribute 90% of media- they don't deserve our patronage, go belly up sooner rather than later.

Also helps to use the wayback machine and post the archive of the story thus depriving add revenue to these 6 companies.

a reply to: BomSquad

Cambridge analytica was working for Trumps campaign team.

I can remember back during the 2016 elections the amount of shilling and meme drilling done for Trump was over the top on a lot of forums and message boards. I think the biggest difference between what Hillarys team was doing and what Trumps was, is where they put the money. Hillary was focusing on sort of old fashion tactics, going through TV, and news sites, whereas Trumps team was going through the more 'alternative' outlets, that yes, include social media, there was a reason why he was pushing for the whole 'fake news' rhetoric.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Im cool with this as a trope. Maybe it will lead to some campaign finance reform.

Lord knows Bloomberg is spending the hell out of advertising dollars.

a reply to: BomSquad


So, what exactly is the disinformation?

Brad Pascale...he is the genius behind the Trump campaign.

Trump kept his promises. Did things NO other president could ever think of.

There is no disinformation though....The only disinformation is what the left will call Trumps campaign....

The DNC has been busy hiring in front of the November elections. Apparently the disinformation being spread by the MSM isn’t working.

a reply to: BomSquad

Sounds like a politically biased opinion piece to me but the premise of the article could ring true if it was looked at with neutrality.

I mean the Democrats seem to be sabotaging their own 2020 options without anyone paying them off so why the hell would Trump need to pay the evidently leftist media to throw the election his way.

None of it makes sense.

I call Bullsh!t.

a reply to: BomSquad
How much is the little billionaire going to spend? He spent millions in 2018 to take the house?

I read this thread title and was disappointed that it had nothing really to do with Michael Bloomberg.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I read this thread title and was disappointed that it had nothing really to do with Michael Bloomberg.

Didn’t Minnie Mike promise the DNC 2 billion for the nomination?

No need to spend that much on a campaign.
The Democrats have already spent a lot just to get Trump elected.

I don't understand why trump needs to spend any money on a reelection campaign. He is the "chosen one" and it's in Gods hands now.

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't understand why trump needs to spend any money on a reelection campaign. He is the "chosen one" and it's in Gods hands now.

Amen brother.