
Google hiring a head of Republican political advertising - astdb
https://careers.google.com/jobs#!t=jo&jid=/google/head-of-industry-republican-political-washington-dc-usa-2513100053
======
snowwrestler
Folks, this is not uncommon for the ad industry. Political entities run a lot
of ads, and they don't want to disclose what they are doing to their
opponents. The obvious answer is to have one team for Dems, one team for GOP,
and a team for orgs (since coordination with candidates is illegal).

------
pjc50
Is there a corresponding head of Democrat political advertising? Will they
have to share an office resulting in sitcom hilarity?

> We are committed to equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color,
> ancestry, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age,
> citizenship, marital status, disability, gender identity or Veteran status.

Good for you. The Republican party really isn't.

~~~
fwn
I'm foreign and maybe I'm mixing stuff up here but I always thought that
giving companies (like Google) the right to decide on whom to employ is
percieved to be deeply republican.

~~~
frogfuzion
I think what he is saying is that the media has painted the Republican Party
as the party of homogeneity that supports the majority of people here
(typically Caucasian and older). Recently it also portrays them as wanting to
scale back certain civil rights/liberties.

Whether or not there is truth to these portrayals is a rabbit hole I dare not
enter this morning :)

~~~
ivraatiems
You might not want to, but I do, because there is. I absolutely can't stand
the term "the media has painted," as though the media is this single
conglomerate where somebody (clearly not old white men, though?) pulls strings
and sets the narrative. Remember, Fox News and Breitbart are just as much "the
media" as anyone else.

The extremely liberal National Review concluded just before the election:
"Republicans have failed for the past half century to attract non-white voters
. . . Republicans have carried the white vote in every general election since
1968." However, it also notes that Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white
vote.[1]

So I think you have it backwards. The media isn't painting Republicans as
homogeneous; Republicans are homogenous, and frankly, aren't even all that
worried about pointing it out. In fact, given the current trend towards ethno-
nationalism, I think you might say some of them are proud of it.

[1][http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-
demograph...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demographics-
diversifying-republicans-falling-behind)

~~~
paulddraper
> Mitt Romney won just 17% of the non-white vote.

(1) In the 2012 presidential race between a white and a black candidate, most
white people voted for the white candidate, and most black people voted for
the black candidate. I'm not sure what generalizations you can make about
that.

(2) In any case, you've chosen a very poor number. Jill Stein won 1% of the
non-white vote in 2016, but I hardly think that makes the Green party racist.

~~~
ivraatiems
The point's not that the Republican party is racist (though they might be).
The point is that the Republican party is mostly white people supporting the
needs and desires of other white people.

~~~
paulddraper
If that is your point, I don't see why you bothered making it.

No comment about how well they do at "supporting needs and desires", but the
Democratic party is also mostly white people. Turns out that's pretty common
in a country of mostly white people.

~~~
ivraatiems
Well, given that America is mostly white, it makes sense. But the Democratic
party is also the party of the majority of non-white people, not just most
non-white groups, but to my knowledge _all_ of them. That says something.

I bothered making it because understanding the demographics of an institution
will help you understand its goals and behavior. I guess I'm not sure why you
see no value in that.

~~~
paulddraper
It might be a rule of thumb, but it's hardly universal.

Bush Sr. got 55% of the Asian vote compared to only 31% for the winning
Clinton.

~~~
ivraatiems
Bill Clinton's last election was more than twenty years ago. Party composition
and behavior has radically changed in that time.

------
frogfuzion
Oh great. As if there isn't already enough to further entrench the two party
system.

