|
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 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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?
Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability).
|
On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability).
Well, there's several potential arguments. Perhaps they doubled down because they knew the DNC didn't know to counter it. Perhaps they doubled down because between the DNC data and their own they put the pieces together. Perhaps it was a "minority opinion" of sorts in the DNC analysis which the Trump team ran with. There's any number of potential hypotheses. I'm not attached to any particular one, but I think it's pretty hard to say that zero of those hypotheses are plausible.
|
On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability).
But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it.
|
Let's say Clinton data consistently has her ahead by a few points in Wisconsin. Clinton sees no activity by Trump in Wisconsin and so does nothing in Wisconsin. Trump camp sees that it's close and flippable after getting Clinton data, so they start doing a little bit of campaigning in Wisconsin. Clinton's data doesn't show the shift in voter sentiment until its too late.
That's a very possible scenario where, yes, Clinton was overconfident and ignored close races where she was favored in. In hindsight, a big mistake. I do think she wanted to crush Trump and was looking more to flip any slightly Trump favored state rather than lock up the ones she was already ahead it.
|
On July 15 2018 11:15 Aquanim 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. 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 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?
Whether the information was useful is not what is being argued. What is being argued is whether the information was likely of the sort to significantly alter campaign strategy.
|
On July 15 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability). But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it.
Did they though? I am not convinced they really knew they could turn former Obama supporters at the rate they did. Places like Mi were not considered to have large amount of what is generally considered core Trump supporters.
At most this is all speculation since we know not what the data or internal strategies were and only have to guess based on vague information that could hint at something or just coincidence.
|
They could commit resources that wouldn't have otherwise been or the opposite, stop putting resources into a state.
This is like arguing that knowing your opponents poker hand is not useful cause you wouldn't play your hand differently.
|
Who cares? If they took the DNC data from the Russians, it’s breaking the law and public trust on how elections are supposed to be decided in the US. Other sovereign nations are not supposed to be involved with our elections.
|
On July 15 2018 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:15 Aquanim wrote: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. 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? Whether the information was useful is not what is being argued. What is being argued is whether the information was likely of the sort to significantly alter campaign strategy.
Fine.
I don't really see anything in the earlier post which contradicts the notion of "it is not implausible that knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on in a two-player zero-sum game with limited information would significantly alter your strategy".
|
On July 15 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote:
Who cares? If they took the DNC data from the Russians, it’s breaking the law and public trust on how elections are supposed to be decided in the US. Other sovereign nations are not supposed to be involved with our elections.
This is the only issue that matters. If daunt wants to convince himself that stolen data doesn't matter in an election where you lost the popular vote and won by a few ten-thousand in key districts, fine. But, uh, it's still a crime far worse than Watergate. Priorities are a lil' wonky.
|
On July 15 2018 11:32 BlueBird. wrote:
They could commit resources that wouldn't have otherwise been or the opposite, stop putting resources into a state.
This is like arguing that knowing your opponents poker hand is not useful cause you wouldn't play your hand differently.
And thus it's totally fine that I look at your cards. Or steal them. No, no: borrow. Using KGB, no, excuse me, GRU agents.
|
Exactly. If they got it from the Russians, they should have turned it over to the FBI and told the public about it. And if that didn’t happen, they broke the law.
This is all speculation, of course, but people are focusing on the wrong issue. If the Trump camp got the data from the Russians and tried, just tried, to use it to win the election, they already fucked up.
|
On July 15 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:
Exactly. If they got it from the Russians, they should have turned to over to the FBI and told the public about it. And if that didn’t happen, they broke the law.
This is all speculation, of course, but people are focusing on the wrong issue. If the Trump camp got the data from the Russians and tried, just tried, to use it to win the election, they already fucked up.
I think the point at issue here is "if we knew the Trump campaign used it, we would then know that they illegally acquired it".
The current discussion is about whether we know or guess or whatever that the Trump campaign used it.
|
On July 15 2018 11:28 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability). But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it. Did they though? I am not convinced they really knew they could turn former Obama supporters at the rate they did. Places like Mi were not considered to have large amount of what is generally considered core Trump supporters. At most this is all speculation since we know not what the data or internal strategies were and only have to guess based on vague information that could hint at something or just coincidence.
Oh come on. No speculation is necessary. As y'all love to point, Trump ran a "racist" campaign that was expressly premised upon targeting rural and blue collar white voters -- the very type of people who carried those former Obama states for him. You think Trump did this without a rational expectation of winning? You think he did it just for shits and giggles? For once, just presume that Trump is competent, and everything will start making sense.
|
On July 15 2018 11:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote:
Exactly. If they got it from the Russians, they should have turned to over to the FBI and told the public about it. And if that didn’t happen, they broke the law.
This is all speculation, of course, but people are focusing on the wrong issue. If the Trump camp got the data from the Russians and tried, just tried, to use it to win the election, they already fucked up. I think the point at issue here is "if we knew the Trump campaign used it, we would then know that they illegally acquired it". The current discussion is about whether we know or guess or whatever that the Trump campaign used it.
That is an interesting discussion for sure, I think it’s import to remember out that simply take the data is a crime for the campaign. It’s effectiveness is not a factor.
|
His campaign was wonky enough that correlation isn't enough to conclude anything, but it looks pretty fucking terrible. Actually, it is already apparently terrible.
The indictment says the Russians went back for that data. They went after it with purpose, towards the end of the election. And they got it. So... I'd have to believe the Russians simply went through the effort to not give it to Trump camp, or the Trump camp would decline to use it on an ethical basis, which is clearly not the case as they gave two-shits about calling the FBI about any of it.
|
And dauntless with the myth Trump knows what is he is doing. I’ve heard this theory serveral times, and knowing about Trump since the 1990s, I’m not convinced. He is the exact same feckless clown from NYC, who has a lot of charisma and not a lot of much else.
|
On July 15 2018 11:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:15 Aquanim wrote: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. 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? Whether the information was useful is not what is being argued. What is being argued is whether the information was likely of the sort to significantly alter campaign strategy. Fine. I don't really see anything in the earlier post which contradicts the notion of "it is not implausible that knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on in a two-player zero-sum game with limited information would significantly alter your strategy".
Sure, there is plenty such contradiction. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a credible explanation for what information that Trump may have seen that would have led him to alter his campaign strategy. That's the whole linchpin of that stupid, speculative tweet: "Trump changed his ad buying strategy just weeks after the DNC hack, ergo it looks like he illegally received and utilized data from the hack." The big hole in this theory is that the DNC had no idea what was going on in the electorate, whereas Trump definitely seemed to already have much better information. Oh, and it's not like Trump didn't make tons of changes to his campaign along the way. The logical conclusion in light of these circumstances is that Trump's changed ad buy had nothing to do with the DNC hack.
|
On July 15 2018 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability). But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it. Did they though? I am not convinced they really knew they could turn former Obama supporters at the rate they did. Places like Mi were not considered to have large amount of what is generally considered core Trump supporters. At most this is all speculation since we know not what the data or internal strategies were and only have to guess based on vague information that could hint at something or just coincidence. Oh come on. No speculation is necessary. As y'all love to point, Trump ran a "racist" campaign that was expressly premised upon targeting rural and blue collar white voters -- the very type of people who carried those former Obama states for him. You think Trump did this without a rational expectation of winning? You think he did it just for shits and giggles? For once, just presume that Trump is competent, and everything will start making sense.
Well after his latest episode where the Queen had to point him around like a lost puppy, on top of a long list of previous episodes where he doesn't seem to have the first clue what he's doing, I'm going to go ahead and remain skeptical on this one. Thanks but no thanks.
|
On July 15 2018 11:47 xDaunt wrote:
Sure, there is plenty such contradiction. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a credible explanation for what information that Trump may have seen that would have led him to alter his campaign strategy.
Since you'll just find some subjective reason to claim that any specific instance is not "credible" I'll not be jumping on this one, thanks. The audience can decide for themselves whether they think any credible instance exists.
The big hole in this theory is that the DNC had no idea what was going on in the electorate, whereas Trump definitely seemed to already have much better information.
You're repeating this again? I already pointed out that somebody drawing erroneous conclusions from some data doesn't mean the data isn't useful for any purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
