Data Source: Meta Ad Library and Who Targets Me

Tools: R, ggplot2

Blog Post: https://whotargets.me/en/how-are-democrats-and-republicans-targeting-their-facebook-ads/

Check out this interactive dashboard to explore targeting during the US 2022 midterms: click here. .

Would also be great to see it sorted by total ad spend.

Looks like an echo chamber. What's the point in advertising to people most likely to vote your way? Seems like these should be reversed.

Because the most central part of voting is getting your base to vote at all. You’d be right if more of us voted, but most people don’t, and that’s largely because of our first to the post system.

So advertisers believe that the moment you have a child that you are prime to flip republican suddenly.

Is it normal for democrats ads to have this bigger spending?

I would like to see the Democrats target hunters more.

"Only crybabies need an AR-15."

"Real men don't spray and pray"

"The difference between hunters and gun nuts? Hunters only need one shot."

Propaganda machine goes brrrrr

I’m not sure if you’ve ever actually encountered a hunter but they’re likely not using AR15s, they certainly won’t “spray and pray” (wtf is this, COD?), and the goal is one shot by most accounts (exception being things like waterfowl).

I read this as “the exception being werewolves” and the nonchalance with which it was presented made me really believe my dude was out here hunting werewolves regularly

Silver bullets are an absolute must for werewolves, they’re just so damn expensive now.

What? This seems extremely convoluted. Although i just woke up, so maybe I'm just tired.

That is the entire point.

u/historycat95 is advocating for an ad campaign that seeks to divorce the "I have a .308 for deer hunting and a 12 ga for turkeys" demographic from the "tacticool loadout 6x AR-15s and 12x Glocks" camp, so that they can convince the first to support some limitations on the second.

But that second group aren’t hunters usually, they’re range folks (which is cool too, to each their own).

Do I think the US needs some better gun laws and culture? For sure. Do I think going about it by insulting people with advertising? No, generally insults don’t make change.

Now that they forbid abortions the only way to get rid of your child is to vote republican and get it killed in a school shooting.

[removed]

Two things that surprised me (I’m not American)

1. Parenting seems heavily R biased. I didn’t think parenting would be political

2. Electoral Reform seems heavily D biased. I thought republicans made most noise about corrupt voting processes etc?

I said the same thing. But then it wouldn't look pretty ;)

That's the point. They are bragging they are hunters and don't need ar-15s

This would be good if the categories didn’t all overlap. I mean, realistically what’s the difference between economy and economics lol. Or politics and political issues. Or parents and parents with toddlers (both are parents lol).

[removed]

inthink its easy to strike fear into parents, because they are extra afraid that their kids are safe.

For 1 I can only guess something along the lines of 'they didn't have an abortion so they are more likely republican'.

For 2, election reform doesn't usually mean things like requiring gov ID to vote. It means things like switch everything to rank choice or get rid of the two party system.

I mean, the vast majority of the world already has voter ID systems in place so I have no idea why the Dems fight so hard against it. Oh wait, I do know.

[deleted]

I have an AR-15 chambered in .308... works well for hunting and allows for follow-up shots if the deer bolts at the last second. I also like the customization options offered by the platform.

The whole "Only shit hunters use AR-15s" stems from one purist making a comment and the anti gun crowd latching on to it because it forwarded their agenda.

I mean, I'm sure you could just as easily find some asshole who thinks "Real hunters" use bows beacuse they hunt with a bow.

Insults don't make change, but they make divisions.

The goal of the campaign here is to divide hunters from range guys, so that Democrats can pass gun safety laws designed to target range guys without the hunters opposing them out of "gun owner solidarity."

I can try to clarify some of this for you. Although because I guarantee someone is going to try to dispute what I say I’ll preface this by disclosing I am an American attorney.

1. Republicans want more control over what their children learn in school. Example: One republican parent named Wendell Perez is suing in Florida after his daughter was taught gender counseling without his knowledge. Basically the legal complaint alleges that the school gave his daughter a new name and instructed the students to treat her as a boy and she ended up trying to commit suicide twice as a result.
2. Democrats favor electoral reform (such as abolishing the electoral college) while Republicans prefer to leave elections the way they’ve been for the last 245 years or so. I don’t pay too much attention to election whiners but as far as I’m aware, Republicans were making noise about the election processes during covid because some of the procedures were changed to accommodate for the disease and, as I’ve mentioned, Republicans prefer to keep the election process untouched and unchanged.

[removed]

Advertisers on FB aren't allowed to directly target political interests, so they look for the proxies that correlate well.

It's smart because it's true. The basic idea of progressivism is continued change, and the conservatives are generally resistant to change.

Having kids causes people to value stability much more than they did before they had kids. The idea of a sudden societal shift or revolution is much more terrifying to parents than to childless people.

Edit: recent study that might be relevant

Some might think are their kids safe from republicans at this point.

The gig economy is killing us!

That’s true. Childless people aren’t leaving anything behind so if all of society shifts what do they care? But if you are seeing a future your child has to live in you become a lot more cautious and picky with societal change. It’s extremely common for people who have their first kid to say that their whole outlook changes and shifts to focus around the kid and it’s future.

It also plays out in the birth rate when broken down along political lines. Conservatives have about 41% more kids than liberals do.

It would be interesting to see this with the height of each stripe proportional to the money spend, so that the thicker stripes were more evident. Another commenter mentioned overlapping categories, and assuming there’s no double-counting going on, this would fix that too.

Why is finance overwhelmingly democrat but personal finance is overwhelmingly Republican?

If that’s true why don’t conservatives care about climate change? It’s easily the biggest factor in the lives of the next generation.

I already follow US politics pretty closely but my first child was born a few months ago. Thinking of the future my daughter has to live in has only cemented my position on the left. I don't want her to have to live in a Christian nationalist hellscape.

It’s also that areas that it’s easier to have kids lean more republican. The denser a place is, the more liberal, but also less kids people have due to cost/difficulty. Opposite for less density. Also some cultural values are prolly in there. Ever seen how anti kid Reddit generally is? It’s also very left leaning. I’m very left leaning and even in surprised how anti kid the general consensus is here.

So I think it’s a correlation thing (republican places/attitudes generate more kids) than a cause (kids make you republican). I say this as a liberal new father. I want all the social safety net shit I wanted before twice as hard now. But who knows, that’s why correlation and causation are so hard to pick apart.

This article goes into it a bit. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html

A coup isn’t sudden societal change?

Prolly liberal people skew young and online. I bet news paper or golf venue ads skew differently.

Hunters are also conservationists. So while dividing them from gun nuts, you court them with the benefits of a green economy on hunting.

Yeah, you suddenly are focused on protecting your kids from everything 20 somethings think is cool and fun.

I’m not going to speak for everyone who is a conservative. But I personally see the link between population and climate change but I also don’t see it as a contingent link. As in, increasing population doesn’t necessarily mean more climate change, due to adoption of things like nuclear energy, wind, solar, etc.

One could also see the US heavy adoption of natural gas and subsequently being in the lead of dropping CO2 emissions in 2019 by absolute numbers and the western world in general as positive steps on climate change.

You could also look at statements on the climate on the past hundred years and it goes back and forth between the earth is heating up and cooling down. And question why this current statement is any different.

There’s a myriad of reasons.

I also think it’s reverse.

If you have more kids, you’re more likely to be Republican. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html

This makes sense. Seeing how the other segments were finance/business I would have guessed they were going on the classic fiscal conservative campaign points. Blue team = higher taxes, we're for the working class, etc

Having a new child will definitely make you reevaluate your finances.

>So I think it’s a correlation thing (republican places/attitudes generate more kids) than a cause (kids make you republican).

I don't disagree with anything you said but I will say that there's not reason it couldn't be both correlated and causitive.

> So advertisers believe that the moment you have a child that you are prime to flip republican suddenly.

Not quite.

Republicans pushed a "Parents' Rights" strategy this election, which relies on targeting parents.

Disagree, it’s more that conservatives have kids younger and have more kids than liberals (spend more of their lives raising kids). They are also more susceptible to advertising and consume more media than older educated professionals having 2 kids in their mid to late 30s.

And conservatives wouldn’t want to live in a woke hellscape where their kids are being told they have original sin based on skin color. So I doubt you want a radical societal shift to the right, the same way they don’t want a radical shift to the left.

I never said it was more cautious and picky in either specific direction.

It's been extremely common for at least the last 20 years. Look at the 2016 election, Hillary's campaign and PACs outspent Trump's 2 to 1. Obama's campaign outspent Romney's in 2008 3 to 1.

​

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5820c11d16000019002c8e27.png?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale&format=webp

Only time I’ve ever seen Kanye West referred to as moderate lol

The following are listed:

Government

Local Government of the United States

Local Government

Federal Government of the United States

Why are Local Government and Local Government of the United States differentiated? Are ads being paid for by foreign nations?

I think this last election, as well as common sense, has pretty much solidified that the vast majority of republicans do not support the events that happened on Jan 6th. Only Reddit and the generally very left leaning media with an obvious bias has continually tried to paint it that way. Sorry for reality, bud.

Thanks for this answer - very interesting!

For me (again, not an American) it seems as if American politicians (and media for the easy clicks) have convinced the public the “others” are enemies out to destroy the country (they either want to destroy families or, well, be Nazis).

Incidentally, my own perspective is that all Americans I’ve met are fairly similar, having been to both very liberal and very conservative areas. Americans just tend to be quite nice and friendly and care about their country. There are regional differences of course - like hunting, but I don’t know any country where folks living in a big city are generally into that kind of activity.

The data does seem to indicate there are differences, but in all honestly, if the difference is how much someone likes Joe Rogan, I’m not sure it’s worth worrying about.

>Disagree, it’s more that conservatives have kids younger and have more kids than liberals (spend more of their lives raising kids).

I agree that conservatives have more kids, and have them when they are younger. I'm not sure how that disagrees with anything I've said.

> They are also more susceptible to advertising and consume more media than older educated professionals having 2 kids in their mid to late 30s.

Haha reddit moment

Ah, forget that that was 2 years ago, airight? Just moving on to the party of (checks notes) massive societal changes ala the supreme court.

My family are all Fox Republicans, bud. They don’t support Jan 6 only because it didn’t work.

I was just saying that having kids doesn’t turn people conservative. They were mostly conservative already.

> haha Reddit moment

Fair enough lol. Showing my bias.

I see what you mean, you are saying it may be that "conservatives are just more likely to be parents for various reasons, rather than people becoming more conservative after having kids."

Yeah I can agree with that, but why not both?

It’s good to see the spending on Kanye west is pretty evenly split.

I think its because they see it as something that wont effect current kids WHEN they are kids. When they get older they can deal with it but right now they value the paycheck that keeps their kids fed over a shift in our energy economy. That is the argument anyway.

There are lots of idiosyncratic issues that ended up on one side of the political spectrum with little direct correlation to the advertised philosophy of the group. In the case of Climate this is due to heavy investment by fossil fuel within the media right leaning people consume.

What? The question isn't "does population cause climate change?" The question is "why wouldn't you do everything in your power to prevent climate change since you know your kids are going to have to deal with it?" If parents are change-averse, preventing massive environmental shifts should be near the top of their priorities.

But we already know why there's a disconnect: the disinformation is myriad. For example, someone has lied to you about what science said about the climate over the past hundred years. There has been no "back and forth" in the scientific literature. If you don't believe me, go read the literature - it's right there. You wouldn't be making this argument if you were familiar with the literature. Even during the 1970s, when the idea of global cooling was most prominent, the vast majority (>90%) of climate studies, as well as the broad consensus, identified a broad and continuing trend of warming.

That is a great question. I would assume the “finance” interest on FB is people who work in the finance industry, while “personal finance” would be people interested in consumer finance targets. If that’s correct, I might think the spend should be reversed.

It could also be people are targeting ads badly, or somewhat randomly. People are not always great at their jobs.

>My family are all Fox Republicans, bud. They don’t support Jan 6 only because it didn’t work.

And your anecdotal evidence about your family shows your obvious bias as well and apparently your inability to look at the data on it and see that the candidates that supported Trump's attempt at discrediting the election process did not do well in the midterms.

[deleted]

How was 446k spent targeting Kanye?

Not american, I don't take side in american politics. Just fyi.

This chart:

Republicans: Chill things like fishing and hunting and being a family, also personal financial stuff, news and small businesses.

Democrats: Activist, social movement, NPR radio..

Lol

True middle 🙏

> What? The question isn’t “does population cause climate change?” The question is “why wouldn’t you do everything in your power to prevent climate change since you know your kids are going to have to deal with it?” If parents are change-averse, preventing massive environmental shifts should be near the top of their priorities.

That was one of the several potential reasons, I gave several….

Dude, you’re coming after me like these are my beliefs the only one I stated was mine was the first one, all I was doing was giving potential reasons that someone asked me for.

Idk, I'd have to look up some studies on it.

The far left gives you really alternative vibes on family issues. Gov. funded day care, Paid leave when a child is born for both parents. Great. On the other hand so many of the same people will be sneeringly dismissive of marriage or any of the traditional values and sacrifices people make. The rage and contempt is certainly noticed. News Flash; People are aware of what they are giving up to raise a family and make a lifelong commitment. Unfortunately with that tone it pushes people in the other direction even if that side is not offering viable solutions. Just very unfortunate.

I was pretty progressive before I had kids. Now I am a radical eco-leftist. I don't want them to drown in an earth-sized hottub in 50 years.

Winning politics in America now seems to be more about getting your base to vote rather than trying to win over the middle.

Winning politics in America now seems to be more about getting your base to vote rather than trying to win over the middle.

>> If you have more kids, you’re more likely to be Republican.

And/or if you're Republican, you're likely to have more kids. There's always tons of feedback loops in these explanatory webs. Trying to find one reason to explain it all is futile. Humans are darn complicated.

I think the GOP just got a historically unprecedented midterm result because they continually messed around with all that crazy shit and it turns normal people way off

You can only say these so may times before it changes you: "because I said so," "don't break that," "show some respect," "stranger danger," "life's not fair," "you get what you get and you don't get upset," "are your chores finished?"

This logic is arse backwards though considering the damage the right is doing to the planet....

I think Republicans are targeting parents of children of various ages because of the concern of many parents about changes to education, particularly re introducing more and more controversial material. I'd say the 2 top areas of concern are re race theory and also sexual education, including policies around issues of sexuality/sexual identification, etc.

Any data that isn't a clear cut physics measurement, that determines values for numbers that large. . . Down to the ones place. . . Is bullshit. Round off at least so it doesn't look fabricated.

Just another graph with no CLIMATE CHANGE. There is no leadership in this country and climate deniers have ingrained backward thinking to the detriment of us all. Thanks a lot, voters of Florida circa 2000.

• finance: 85% Democrat
• business and finance: 75% republican
• personal finance: 85% republican

Not really sure what conclusions one can even draw off this data

The other thing is that once you have kids you generally have less time/energy to research and stay up to date with things so you are easier to manipulate

Targeting hunting and fishing heavily really reveals the Republican interest in rural communities.

I cannot even think of ever seeing a hunting or fishing ad anywhere ever.

What even is a fishing ad?

[removed]

Dang politics won what a shocker

Do you think it’s actual contempt or do you think it’s just trolly people making noise online? I’m child free, so I really don’t have a gauge on that.

This makes it seem like conservatives are likely happier. Focus on family and enjoyment in nature.

It's funny that you described an actual tenant of the LDS church when trying to describe the "bad liberal" stuff.

This reaffirms my belief that despite all the theater this was a very average election content wise. People still believe and vote in the same things and ways as they did before obama’s presidency

It's not particularly true. Exit polls from the midterms show there isn't much of a gap between parents and childless people (47% and 48% voted Dem, respectively).

The big predictor is marriage (41% Dem for married, 59% Dem for unmarried). Married women are more right-wing than unmarried men.

The right doesn't need to do as much advertising. They just tweet something outrageous and the media gleefully does their job for them.

Trump got $2b worth of free advertising from the media in 2016 alone.

[deleted]

If you see two people with a strong negative opinion, and everybody else is neutral/not discussing it, then you're going to think the majority of people have that strong negative opinion.

Ads for fishing equipment and locations, probably.

So.... you are saying that after having kids people start seeing free healthcare and free education as not necessary?

This is absolutely the case as an American with roots in both Montana (highly Republican) and western Washington (highly Democrat). When people speak face to face, they can easily find common ground, and will usually identify misconceptions they have about each other. These same misconceptions fuel the divide we see in the MSM, and are very profitable to said MSM since outrage fuels engagement and by extension advertising revenue.

I don't care whether you believe the lies or not. Stop repeating them.

Maybe? I’m really not in a position to know either way, my bubble tends to mostly by child free as well.

About to be new dad Republican here. Thank you for your comments, you have a lot of good points!

Makes sense to me.

Finance is about systems and the overall economy. People who work in finance or are interested in finance are generally more educated. Not to be too spicy, but most people interested in finance are smart/educated enough to know the Republican economic policy is terrible for the economy.

Personal finance is about personal responsibility. Most of the advice boils down to "start rich and/or save your money, then all you problems will magically be solved, if that didn't work, you weren't trying hard enough". It's big with the small business and "temorarily disgraced capitalist" crowd. It plays pretty strongly to the Republican base.

> vast majority of republicans do not support the events that happened on Jan 6th

yet they still vote for the politicians that either supported Jan 6th or obstructed investigation into it.

Proof that Democrats are now the party of Family Values.

Electoral reform isn't just about voter ID system, it's about gerrymandering, fixing/abolishing the electoral college, proportional representation, statehood for DC and US territories, disenfranchisement of black voters through the criminal justice system, etc.

Wanting more representative democracy in America skews heavily towards the Democrats.

>Parenting seems heavily R biased. I didn’t think parenting would be political

It's easy to fear monger to parents and having children, especially at young ages, has got to skew Republican. Democrats tend to be more educated, which means they often postpone having children or don't have children at all.

>Electoral Reform seems heavily D biased. I thought republicans made most noise about corrupt voting processes etc?

Republicans only oppose corrupt/undemocratic voting processes when it doesn't favour them. They are fine with the electoral college, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of black voters, a very unrepresentative senate electoral process, DC and US territories not being allowed to vote for certain elections, and plurality voting. Most Republicans won't even admit many of these things are problems.

Basically anyone interested in electoral reform in the US would vote Democrat and the democrats are probably advertising to both raise awareness of these issues and get people who care about them out to vote.

Like selling arms to Iran to fund the contras? Or breaking into your presidential opponents office and then covering it up? Or inventing wmd’s to get the public to acquiesce to an illegal war? Wait, what year is this?

>So.... you are saying that after having kids people start seeing free healthcare and free education as not necessary?

If those are a drastic change from the existing system, yes.

Again, parents tend to favor stability and reject drastic changes to government, societal norms, and the economy.

>If that’s true why don’t conservatives care about climate change? It’s easily the biggest factor in the lives of the next generation.

Likely true in the long run, but still that is a much longer timeline than, say, a labor revolution, which historically happens in a few years. That is the sort of drastic change that terrifies parents.

The electoral college works exactly as it should though. Proportional representation doesn't work when cities can have the same population as whole states. Statehood of DC is a stupid idea and the same with US territories. Just Dem tricks to buy even more dem voters. Ever wonder why the Ukraine border is sacred and must be defended but the southern border is to be left open so 80k Hondurans can run across every month? And guess how they'll vote. Representative democracy only works with small, homogeneous societies.

>The electoral college works exactly as it should though.

Only if I agree with you on how it should work in the first place, but I very much disagree.

>Proportional representation doesn't work when cities can have the same population as whole states.

Define "doesn't work". I would argue giving more representation to cities with populations larger than whole state is proportional representation working.

>Statehood of DC is a stupid idea and the same with US territories. Just Dem tricks to buy even more dem voters.

So letting US citizens vote is some evil Democrat conspiracy? That's your argument?

Like I said, wanting more representative democracy skews heavily towards the Democrats.

>Ever wonder why the Ukraine border is sacred and must be defended but the southern border is to be left open so 80k Hondurans can run across every month? And guess how they'll vote.

Trying to change the subject with something completely irrelevant? Stay on topic, coward.

>Representative democracy only works with small, homogeneous societies.

Prove it.

This is so biased and wrong I don't even know where to begin. Personal finance is about cutting away your vices, and spending on what's important first (Like rent, food) and then spending what's left on your personal luxuries and savings.

This is such a fucked up comment dude. I know you've got a political bias, and that's completely okay. But to misuse the opposing argument is a strawman at best, and just generally disingenuous.

Lol, name calling and asking for proof proof proof, typical. Interacting with your kind isn't worth the effort, you're never going to see reality.

Wealthy urban professionals tend to vote Democrat, budget conscious rural workers tend to vote Republican?

Jeez not a hint of exaggeration here…if I could keep track the number of people that say “fucked up” about anything on Reddit I would have a real talent.

Some interesting definitions of "personal finance" all around. I'd suggest personal finance is topics like pensions, cost of living, mortgages.

Basic budgeting, which you seem to be referring to here is condescending at best to assume others are dumb enough to have it as an interest. Its so basic its like targeting advertising on people who use the alphabet.

That even split in entrepreneurship is why the left is correct to call Democrats a right-wing party. Both parties in the US are for liberalism, which is a right wing ideology.

There is no chance of change when everyone in office supports the same economic model.

This might be the most biased and delusional comment I’ve ever seen in my years on reddit. Do you think that personal finance provides no value to those that weren’t born rich?

So what? I don’t give the potential reasons when asked? I just say “well I would tell you but u/mean11while told me not to.” And because they’re in charge of me I can’t because they don’t believe that people can hear them without instantly believing them.

If you’d been less of an instant dickhole then I may feel more inclined to do as you demand, but currently I do not.

Republicans are trying to greatly reduce the number of voting locations in most states. That's not "keep it the same as it's been".

Entrepreneurship was 50/50, interesting

>Do you think that personal finance provides no value to those that weren’t born rich?

Of course not. Saving for the future is very useful even for poor people, it's just not exactly groundbreaking advice and it's not enough to fix all your problems within the context of being a poor person in America.

You also have to keep in mind that this is personal finance in the context of Instagram/Facebook.

Like I actually value personal finance for myself, but I'm not getting any of my personal finance information from these sources. Much of the personal finance content on these platforms is just wealth porn, hustle culture, and get rich quick scheme type stuff.

Ok that makes sense, but is also depressing at the same time.

> budget conscious rural workers tend to vote Republican?

Even though when their candidates are in power the blow up the national debt.

This exactly what I would expect to hear from someone that is not in finance, never owned a business, and has a net worth south of $100k.

1. Unlike what reddit loves to say, politics are not as simple as "conservatives want to keep things frozen in time, progressives want to advance society". Both sides want to advance, and I'd say the main difference is that conservatives tend to prefer cautious bottom-up changes while the progressives love radical top-down changes when it is for what they consider a good cause.

2. It's not true that conservatives don't care about climate change. It's just that on a political level in North America the left has dominated that field for so long that the right can't even set a foot in it.

But if you look at global conservatism (in Europe for example), they do care about climate change, they just disagree with the left about how to approach it. The left usually poses that capitalism and consumerism are the problem, and propose global treaties that attack it on a global scale. Conservatives disagree that capitalism/consumerism are to blame and propose that instead of letting the problem rest on the hands of international committees, you approach it on a community level, fostering local sovereignty, holding ordinary people accountable while also empowering them to act better and protect the environment in their own neighborhood. See "Green Philosophy" by Roger Scruton. He explains that sometimes we are stuck thinking about global co2 emissions while not realizing that we are destroying our own homes.

Conservatives are also rarely fans of solar energy and the likes. They usually push for nuclear energy.

I edited my original comment with one if you want to check it out.

As far as American conservatism goes, I never see conservatives arguing for change unless it's tax breaks for the rich. Otherwise it's always about either stopping change or undoing change that's already been done. Repealing laws that make guns harder to get, undoing precedents allowing women to receive abortions, undoing legislation that keeps corporations in check.

If you want to be super generous I see American conservatives argue for better veteran protections sometimes, but they often vote against it when given the chance.

Maybe it's different in other countries, and maybe it was different before I was an adult and paying attention to politics, but from my observation I don't ever see conservatives tryingto advance things in either direction, just undo or stop change.

Dems don't have kids because they abort them all! /s

Typically the Dems out spend the GOP in every cycle also the Dems are wealthier, the idea of the rich Republican is old.

>I would argue giving more representation to cities with populations larger than whole state is proportional representation working.

Cities should not dictate laws to the countryside and vice versa. This is why we are supposed to have a decentralized system of government.

Your primary law making should happen at a local level. Larger issues go to the states, issues yet larger go to the nation.

Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

People should care more about their local elections than whatever dufus from either rival gang that just wants to extort and scam you while blaming the other gang is in the white house.

The GOP elevates being a parent to hero level while defunding schools and every system that actually supports children. The name of the game for the GOP is to get their voters to think they are special because they are parents, have a job and believe in Jesus. Obviously the Dems don't have kids, don't have jobs and don't believe in Jesus then. Dem voters in the US are typically better educated, wealthier, healthier and more urban and the non-sense about being special because you have a job or are a parent doesn't work, Dems want actual policies and not ass kissing.

Wait… only republicans hunt and fish?!

US politics is about 2 things, motivating your base and winning the dividing line between the Exburbs and Suburbs.

The algorithm thinks I'm super conservative just because I like outdoor hobbies

Ha! Joke's on them. I'm in like 3 of the top 10 at both extremes.

And...

I didn't vote.

Well you're correct that I'm not in finance. Wrong on the other two.

it's not an ad for fishing, it's a political ad targeted at people with a preference for fishing. Would be highly correlated with independence and distrust of overbearing authorities and preference for hunting.

the money wasn't spent "targeting Kanye", it's spent targeting people with an interest in topics such as Kanye. So, if you've read like 3 articles about Kanye that your cousin linked from Twitter, you're probably on this list as interested in Kanye. If advertisers then spend $$ to target ads at people like you, then that money will show up in the 446k.

Not really happier, the focus for "conservatives" is preserving the things they have and getting the government out of their business. Fishing and hunting aren't so much for "enjoyment of nature" as they are expressions of independence and individual control over the surroundings.

>Cities should not dictate laws to the countryside and vice versa.

Again with the should. I simply disagree. Laws are about people, not geography.

>This is why we are supposed to have a decentralized system of government.

Stupid irrelevant argument. You don't need an unrepresentative political system to have decentralized political power. The US system is both decentralized and unrepresentative. You can easily keep it decentralized while making it more representative.

>Your primary law making should happen at a local level. Larger issues go to the states, issues yet larger go to the nation.

I don't like the way you worded the first sentence but I largely agree. The largest, most democratically legitimate body should set laws that can be widely agreed upon then delegate other decisions to smaller, more local, governments.

>Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

What does that even mean? Define pure democracy.

>People should care more about their local elections than whatever dufus from either rival gang that just wants to extort and scam you while blaming the other gang is in the white house.

Depends on the issues they care about. Local governments matter a lot, but it's federal and state governments that make the majority of decisions on major issues like criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights. If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

Everyone blows up the national debt and everyone has a special reason why they usually don’t but this time they have to. Democrats blow up the national debt to benefit their voters, Republicans blow up the national debt to benefit their voters. Just party politics.

Besides, I more meant personal budget than national budget. Hence the contrast with relatively wealthier urbanites.

Actually pretty self-explanatory, and I'm not even Murican (and much less Republican or Democrat):

Affluent and educated urbanites are interested in finance at large – and mostly Democrats.

Rural and "personal responsibility" focused business owners are interested in personal finance and such – and mostly Republicans.

Wait so then whats “local government in the United States” ?

This election is a bit more of an outlier (although who knows if the trend will continue), since the view as the republicans being the "systematically stable" party has been tarnished lately. Overruling abortion was a big deal, pushing religion and abandoning civil rights discussions in class rooms is a big deal. Over the last two years, the democrats have swayed the status quo less than the republicans have.

I'm an independent, and I'm pretty sure I give all the algorithms a stroke. I once had back to back adds, one for survival/hunting equipment and the other one for fresh home delivery vegan meals...

The most important thing to understand about this data is that it plays to both sides.

The problem is that the left can't even agree on what it thinks socialism is. You have your hard left people that want to completely tear down the system and make the government in charge of all the means of production so that they can distribute the profits accordingly to the people. Then you have the more moderate left that wants things like socialized healthcare, better public education financing, social security expanses, etc... Except, that's not actually "Socialism" as an "economic model..." That's just welfare, and welfare can certainly be a part of capitalism.

This actually explains a lot.

I lean left but I like fishing, I’ve been like “in what world do you think I’m a target for these crazy GOP nut job ads?”

But I get it now

If you are invested in a renewable energy venture (say solar) then who do you want to put your ads in front of? You have a product to sell and you want people to buy it. So you advertise to the people you think are most likely to buy it.

The old adage is that conservatives want to be left alone, and progressives want to see change.

And, for the most part, it actually creates somewhat of a reasonable discord between people. The problem is when the sides deviate from these values and start to impose the opposite on their counterparts.

So, if the conservatives just want to be left alone, then maybe they should stay away from the abortion issue and stop pushing their religion on children. If the progressives want to equality and social liberty, then maybe they need to stop demanding society punish people that are exercising their constitutional rights in a lawful manor.

Kanye bringing us all together

That "moderate left", Democratic socialism, is not left at all, but a centrist position. The world is so right heavy that people think that maintaining a softer version of capitalism is "left". It takes advantage of the emotional value of the word socialism, but never seeks to end capitalism.

The left is strictly anti-capitalist. Full stop. That includes MLs (maoists, dengists, Stalinists, and orthodox maxist-leninists and some smaller variants) and anarchists. One of those groups is very clear about what socialism is and the other isn't socialist at all. Both believe in an end goal of communism with radically different ideas of how it can be achieved.

[removed]

Yes absolutely, it's all about balance and making everyone happy. Politics definitely ain't easy!

The republicans are still seen by some as the party of the blanced budget only because they were the last ones to care about it. Gingrich in the 90s was the last to successfully do it, and since then about 10 republicans have actually ever voted for it but the majority want their ticket items to be paid for same as democrats

>I simply disagree. Laws are about people

I don't think the people in NYC would like their laws decided by the people of Appalachia and vice versa. You realize people live on land right?

>Define pure democracy.

Laws or the president decided by a popular vote would be an example.

I also think the Senate should go back to how the founders intended it with senators appointed by state legislatures.

The House is meant to represent people at the federal level. The Senate is meant to represent each state, and the president is meant to be elected by the states as is the case with the electoral college.

>criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights.

Most of these should be handled at most at the state level.
Criminal Justice is mostly a state and local DA level issue.
Taxes are complicated but a higher proportion should be at a local level.
Environmental regulations should only be national where it has a direct impact on another state (ex, MN can't pollute the Mississippi river because that pollution impacts other states).
States should primarily control their economies (to the extent states want to control the economy) with the Feds primarily existing to ensure trade between the states and settle disputes.
Feds should handle the military (sans National Guard units at the state level) and foreign affairs as a representative of the states. This is why states vote for POTUS and Senate, not people (popular vote).
Basic civil rights as in the constitution exist at the federal level. Any other "right" should be at the state level unless it becomes a new amendment to the constitution.

>If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

This wasn't a subjective judgement, rather it is an observation of fact that local elections have a more tangible impact on everyone than federal elections. If this isn't the case then something is terribly wrong.

I disagree on most of your opinions. Also many of your "facts" are wrong.

Thanks. I do understand that, although it would be hilarious to think they both paid half a mil to "reach" Kanye. I see my phrasing could've been more specific. I'm shocked though, trying to understand that amount tied to Kanye search terms alone. I'd love to see specifics on this.

Entrepreneurship, the great equalizer

Budget-conscious urban workers tend to vote Democrat and wealthy people in general vote republican

Absolutely wild that Kanye west and Joe Rogan are the 2 names on there

Best time to chsnge someones opinion is after having kids.

Saying it on Reddit doesn’t make it true.

Especially when it’s provably false.