|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 15 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
How would DNC analytics help Trump target his advertising when the DNC very clearly had no idea how badly they were about to lose?
I'm fairly sure "The DNC analytics had no information useful to the Trump campaign" absolutely does not follow from "some broad conclusions the DNC drew from their data were inaccurate", even assuming that I grant the second assertion means whatever you think it means.
|
On July 15 2018 10:21 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
How would DNC analytics help Trump target his advertising when the DNC very clearly had no idea how badly they were about to lose? I'm fairly sure "The DNC analytics had no information useful to the Trump campaign" absolutely does not follow from "some broad conclusions the DNC drew from their data were inaccurate", even assuming that I grant the second assertion means whatever you think it means.
I’m working under the presumption that their data was bad given their surprise at the outcome.
|
5930 Posts
On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign.
Are you even aware what you're saying here?
Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful.
Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive.
|
On July 15 2018 10:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:21 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
How would DNC analytics help Trump target his advertising when the DNC very clearly had no idea how badly they were about to lose? I'm fairly sure "The DNC analytics had no information useful to the Trump campaign" absolutely does not follow from "some broad conclusions the DNC drew from their data were inaccurate", even assuming that I grant the second assertion means whatever you think it means. I’m working under the presumption that their data was bad given their surprise at the outcome.
Depends if the data was consistently bad or bad in specific zones. You can make extremely accurate strategic decisions from data that is, for example, + 3 Dem favored across the board. And you can also draw conclusions from where your own data and their data diverge and don't diverge if you think there's systematic bias.
Which is to say nothing of the obvious advantage of being aware of what your opponents believe their situation is even when they're wrong about it. Hopefully on a video gaming forum the potency of that is obvious.
|
On July 15 2018 10:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:21 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
How would DNC analytics help Trump target his advertising when the DNC very clearly had no idea how badly they were about to lose? I'm fairly sure "The DNC analytics had no information useful to the Trump campaign" absolutely does not follow from "some broad conclusions the DNC drew from their data were inaccurate", even assuming that I grant the second assertion means whatever you think it means. I’m working under the presumption that their data was bad given their surprise at the outcome.
This presumption is not a good one. There is plenty of information useful to the Trump campaign that can be gleaned from DNC data which was poorly predictive of the end result, including but not limited to:
- Comparisons between different states and areas
- Insight into the likely actions which the DNC will take in the future
Furthermore, even if the DNC data was bad the Trump campaign is unlikely to have known that at the time, and therefore the badness of the data has no effect on whether the Trump campaign would have thought it useful to use it in deciding where to target advertising.
|
On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive.
You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else.
|
5930 Posts
You're assuming that they ONLY thing that was in those documents would be internal polling information. Again, the information in these documents would still be useful even if the data was bad.
If the Sacramento Kings' draft notes got leaked, it would still be useful even if they consistently draft badly. Because you'd know exactly who they were targeting, how high they were on certain candidates, what they thought about said candidates and what they might be planning to give up to move up on the draft if an opportunity was presented to them.
|
On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else.
Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge.
|
On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge.
Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing.
|
On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing.
I think part of the implication in that initial tweet-thread discussion is that the Trump campaign was managed so haphazardly and incoherently that they didn't know what states were in play, and any information at all on which might be in play was thus information they didn't have.
I'm kind of inclined to believe that, just because they had such an insane revolving door and even fucked up getting on some ballots, but that might just be confirmation bias.
|
United States13816 Posts
Even if the Trump campaign was given all the DNC campaign data they would still have to use it better then the DNC in order for it to really benefit them. Going through all that minute data would take a ton of resources and time, that an underfunded and understaffed campaign that Trump had going, that might have been better used in a variety of different reasons.
And if the Russians are so much better at elections then the US political establishment that the advice they could give from said data then we're in a much worse situation then a single presidential election.
|
On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing.
In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well.
EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something.
On July 15 2018 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
Even if the Trump campaign was given all the DNC campaign data they would still have to use it better then the DNC in order for it to really benefit them.
If you and I play a game of Starcraft, and I am maphacking stream sniping (better analogy) and see everything you see, do I have to use the information from looking at your units better than you to derive an advantage?
The analogy's not perfect, but do you get the idea?
|
5930 Posts
On July 15 2018 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
Even if the Trump campaign was given all the DNC campaign data they would still have to use it better then the DNC in order for it to really benefit them. Going through all that minute data would take a ton of resources and time, that an underfunded and understaffed campaign that Trump had going, that might have been better used in a variety of different reasons.
And if the Russians are so much better at elections then the US political establishment that the advice they could give from said data then we're in a much worse situation then a single presidential election.
I think this is a fair statement to make if we consider the success a lot of far right political parties are having across Europe. These guys aren't all of a sudden omnipotent with their messaging and campaigning.
|
On July 15 2018 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
Even if the Trump campaign was given all the DNC campaign data they would still have to use it better then the DNC in order for it to really benefit them. Going through all that minute data would take a ton of resources and time, that an underfunded and understaffed campaign that Trump had going, that might have been better used in a variety of different reasons.
And if the Russians are so much better at elections then the US political establishment that the advice they could give from said data then we're in a much worse situation then a single presidential election.
Not quite. In order to benefit it more from it than the DNC they would need to use it better. But you don't have to benefit from information more than your opposition for it to help you at all.
I mean, the benchmark for benefit is just comparing a hypothetical where Trump has the data to one where he doesn't. You'd always pick the second one from a strategic perspective, which is a good sign it benefits at least in theory.
That said, I think you're right in that they were too poorly managed to get tangible mileage out of anything they did get, if they did get anything at all. Trump seemed to just travel to places where people would clap when he said things the hardest and had the best ability to lie about crowd sizes.
|
On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something.
What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context.
|
On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context.
It's perfectly possible to have your own plan, and be enacting your own plan, but then receive information that causes you to change course because of the clear benefit it provides. Saying Trump had his plan all along doesn't refute the idea that gaining inside information would cause him to change his plan.
|
On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context.
If you think that would it not be a fair assumption that their data contradicted the DNC data and that they were confident that the DNC was highly overestimating their strength in states like Mi/OH/Wi etc and that they could exploit that?
|
On July 15 2018 10:53 Sermokala wrote:
Even if the Trump campaign was given all the DNC campaign data they would still have to use it better then the DNC in order for it to really benefit them. Going through all that minute data would take a ton of resources and time, that an underfunded and understaffed campaign that Trump had going, that might have been better used in a variety of different reasons.
And if the Russians are so much better at elections then the US political establishment that the advice they could give from said data then we're in a much worse situation then a single presidential election.
The point isn’t that the data helped them win, but that there seems to be evidence they accepted the data in the first place. Accepting material assistance from foreign powers is prohibited during elections.
|
On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context. If you think that would it not be a fair assumption that their data contradicted the DNC data and that they were confident that the DNC was highly overestimating their strength in states like Mi/OH/Wi etc and that they could exploit that?
How would they exploit it? As in, what would they do differently?
|
On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:24 Womwomwom wrote:On July 15 2018 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
The timeline doesn’t match up. If the democrats knew that there was a risk or a problem in September, logic dictates that they would have started addressing it sooner than during the last week of the campaign. Are you even aware what you're saying here? Polling in September is not polling in October or November. If you had complete insider access to the Cleveland Browns front office, you'd be able to figure out what their blind spots were. Even if they're the worst run team in North America, having this insider knowledge is still useful. Clinton running a bad campaign and an opposing campaign benefiting from "bad data" aren't mutually exclusive. You have to keep in mind that what we found out after the election was that the polling was systemically bad. The general consensus was that no one thought that any of the blue states that Trump won were in play in September and October. This was reflected not only in the public polling data that was released but also in how Hillary and the democrats campaigned generally. I have a very hard time believing that the DNC had data showing weakness in these states during that time frame. We simply would have seen the campaign play out differently. Hillary was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign, but not even she was so incompetent as to ignore data. For that reason, the idea that this bad data influenced Trump's overall campaign strategy and ad buys seems very far-fetched. Trump was looking at something else. Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context.
I don't really see anything in this post which contradicts the notion of "knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on in a two-player zero-sum game with limited information is pretty useful".
To be clear, I don't know that the Trump campaign significantly altered their course based on the DNC data but it doesn't seem like a farfetched notion that they might have. Without a time machine or a paper trail I wouldn't do anything more than point it out as a not unreasonable possibility.
I'll also point out that this argument has very little relation to your original statement of
On July 15 2018 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
How would DNC analytics help Trump target his advertising when the DNC very clearly had no idea how badly they were about to lose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
