/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Ahead of the midterms, US political campaigns are using voter-profiling companies and vast amounts of data to target campaign ads on guns, vaccines, and QAnon

even a “Trump resistance” score. Yes, you too may have a “QAnon Believer” score. https://www.nytimes.com/... Julia Rosen / @juliarosen : The one when the NYT discovers models and scores. Decade late there fellas. https://www.nytimes.com/... Dean Eckles / @deaneckles : Interesting coverage of contemporary and past voter targeting. Perhaps notable that Cambridge Analytica now gets only a brief mention, and that (to me at least) the piece isn't written in a particularly ominous way. “Check Your ‘Trump Resistance’ Score” https://www.nytimes.com/... Nils Gilman / @nils_gilman : I confess that my reaction to articles like this is pretty much a giant “meh.” This is just Market Segmentation 101, applied to political choice-making. If you don't like being treated like a predictable robot, then stop acting like a predictable robot. https://www.nytimes.com/... Natasha Singer / @natashanyt : Voter surveillance, of course, is hardly a new practice. In 1840, Abraham Lincoln co-authored a circular for the Whig Party instructing local party committees to “keep a CONSTANT WATCH on the DOUBTFUL VOTERS” in their districts and target them with persuasion efforts. https://twitter.com/... Ulrike Franke / @rikefranke : “The process can involve classifying more than 150 million voters — using ratings like “gay marriage” scores or “non-Christian” scores — on personal beliefs they might have assumed were private.” https://www.nytimes.com/... @kashhill : Ad-targeting firms are now scoring American voters for “qanon believer,” “UFO distrust,” “racial resentment,” “Trump resistance.” Love that @natashanyt included this 1840 campaign circular (that Abraham Lincoln helped write) on steering the undecided. https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...

New York Times Natasha Singer

Context & Ripple Effects

Six years after [[a:878234|Cambridge Analytica built psychological profiles of Facebook users from quizzes and consumer data]], the practice has not shrunk — it has normalized. The New Republic documented in 2018 that political data firms kept vacuuming up psychological data after the scandal, and Trump's campaign spent roughly $20M on 218K+ Facebook ads designed partly to harvest user data in 2019.

What is new in this report is scale and symmetry: profiling vendors now classify roughly 150 million voters with named scores like 'QAnon Believer' and 'Trump Resistance,' and both sides use them — Acronym was already building an ex-Facebook-staffer operation to turn Trump's online ad tactics against him before the last cycle.

First-order effects

  • Campaigns buying these scores can target ads on guns, vaccines, and QAnon at individuals by belief profile rather than party registration, making the profiling vendors direct infrastructure for the midterm ad spend of both parties.

Second-order effects

  • Because the tactic is now bipartisan — Acronym's mirror of Trump's playbook proved it — neither party has an incentive to push platform or regulatory restrictions on political microtargeting, and Facebook and other platforms face continued demand for the granular ad formats that make scoring profitable.

Third-order effects

  • If scoring 150 million voters becomes standard campaign procurement, voter profiling consolidates into a permanent industry that outlives any single scandal — Cambridge Analytica collapsed as a brand while its methods became table stakes, pointing toward regulation aimed at data brokers rather than individual campaigns.

The trend: Political persuasion is shifting from demographic targeting to scored psychological profiles held by commercial data vendors, with each election cycle normalizing what the previous scandal exposed.

Discussion

  • @learmonth Michael Learmonth on x
    Ads targeting your ‘racial resentment’ score https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @juliarosen Julia Rosen on x
    The one when the NYT discovers models and scores. Decade late there fellas. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @rikefranke Ulrike Franke on x
    “The process can involve classifying more than 150 million voters — using ratings like “gay marriage” scores or “non-Christian” scores — on personal beliefs they might have assumed were private.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @kashhill @kashhill on x
    Ad-targeting firms are now scoring American voters for “qanon believer,” “UFO distrust,” “racial resentment,” “Trump resistance.” Love that @natashanyt included this 1840 campaign circular (that Abraham Lincoln helped write) on steering the undecided. https://www.nytimes.com/... …
  • @digitaldemoc @digitaldemoc on x
    Shines light on data #surveillance of voters used for personalized political ad targeting; places this manipulation in historical context too. Note role of commercial online info tracking of #consumers. System #ftc has allowed to grow but now addressing. https://twitter.com/...
  • @natashanyt Natasha Singer on x
    To help target campaign ads, voter-profiling firms generate political issue scores for millions of Americans. There are “gun control” scores, “racial resentment scores” — even a “Trump resistance” score. Yes, you too may have a “QAnon Believer” score. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @deaneckles Dean Eckles on x
    Interesting coverage of contemporary and past voter targeting. Perhaps notable that Cambridge Analytica now gets only a brief mention, and that (to me at least) the piece isn't written in a particularly ominous way. “Check Your ‘Trump Resistance’ Score” https://www.nytimes.com/..…
  • @nils_gilman Nils Gilman on x
    I confess that my reaction to articles like this is pretty much a giant “meh.” This is just Market Segmentation 101, applied to political choice-making. If you don't like being treated like a predictable robot, then stop acting like a predictable robot. https://www.nytimes.com/..…
  • @natashanyt Natasha Singer on x
    Voter surveillance, of course, is hardly a new practice. In 1840, Abraham Lincoln co-authored a circular for the Whig Party instructing local party committees to “keep a CONSTANT WATCH on the DOUBTFUL VOTERS” in their districts and target them with persuasion efforts. https://twi…