• by Ray Kingman , Op-Ed Contributor, December 9, 2014

The 2014 election cycle was all about implementing core campaign toolsets fueled by deep political data. One could argue this was the first time both parties embraced digital tools and data — the very "plumbing" of the modern campaigns — up and down the ballots.  

The ability to match voter data from mobile devices all the way to the call center, to deploy mature canvasing technology and to distribute political preference data through centralized campaign management platforms each played a role in shaping the outcome this past November. As a result, data and technology will now and forever be used by all candidates and advocacy groups moving forward.

Although data and technology have been widely embraced, some insiders would argue they have been used unevenly. Remember, at the most basic level politics is about executing three tactics: fundraising, communicating key messages and getting out the vote. In 2014 it was the use of data and technology to "get out the vote" that made the biggest difference. This was something the GOP did more effectively because they were able to combine anti-incumbent sentiment with some of the tools and tricks pioneered by Obama for America in 2008 and 2012. 

What suffered in the 2014 midterms, aside from the abysmal turnout, was a noticeable lack of effort by campaigns to engage with voters in a meaningful way. By early October — 30 days before Election Day — many voters were so hardened in their positions that thematic messaging had little to no effect; and even getting messages out was a challenge. Television and radio were sold out. Call centers banged away with robocalls that were answered less than 3% of the time (thank you, caller-ID). Even online pre-roll inventory in states like Iowa, Colorado and Utah was tight. 

Rather than attempting to persuade voters through constructive conversations, it was clear that many campaigns simply used online to mimic their television advertising. Ads that screamed from a banner atop a website claiming that a U.S. senator was a member of the Cosa Nostra, or an online video that blamed another Senate candidate for the threat of ISIS did nothing but "feed the beast" by obscuring any logical conversation or appropriate rhetorical response between candidates or voters. Of course, irrationality and hyperbole serve the political purpose of further hardening already-established opinions.  

On the eve of Election Day, New York Times columnist David Brooks commented on the politics of technology and data, which he referred to as the "micro-targeting of specific demographic slices" to track committed voters. “As politics has gotten more scientific,” he wrote, “the campaigns have gotten worse, especially for the candidates who over-rely on these techniques." Data-driven politics assumes that demography is destiny, that the electorate is not best seen as a group of free-thinking citizens, but as a collection of demographic slices. This approach assumes mobilization is more important than persuasion; that it is more important to target your likely supporters than to try to reframe debates or persuade those on the fence.

So, are we done?  No. But obviously the genie is out of the bottle. The 2016 campaigns will use data to define the constituencies necessary to win and then use the available technology to secure them as voters. However, at some point along the way it will also become important that the data and the technology be applied to drive more substantive engagement, to build consensus on challenging issues and to allow voters to interact with candidates, staffers and each other. 

Whether it is through virtual town halls, social chats, flash polling, or interactive television, the discourse about candidates and issues is important. Ignoring the voter’s point of view in the election process can results in a disinterested and disengaged electorate. That is how we have ended up so polarized and with the lowest turnout in 72 years.