Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

nsacpi said:
u are seriously misunderestimating how sophisticated the databases and analytics side of political campaigns have become...this is a revolution that permeates just about everything
Click to expand...

And polling agencies don't have sophisticated operations? These are private companies trying ot make money so I would fully expect them to have similar infrastructures in place.
 
thethe said:
But when you review the methodology on the polling for these other outfits the questions are much more sophisticated then what you are saying as well. Potentially the sample size is the main variant as you noted. But sampling theory states that at a certain point sample size is irrelevant.

I do agree the sharing with a foreign party is a big problem and that needs to be addressed. I am arguing the impact this sharing would have had on a targetted disinformation campaign. And, I still have the same position that many entities influenced the election that should not be considered 'domestic' operations such as media outlets. They all have the same end goals and that is to get their preferred result come true.
Click to expand...

It's the nature of the questions and not just the sample size. As per sample size, I agree that once you get to a certain number, it all washes out, but if you get 800 respondents to cover all demographic areas, you have likely underpolled (is there such a word?) segments of the demographic range. The pollster I know best usually shoots for 1,200 respondents.
 
thethe said:
And polling agencies don't have sophisticated operations? These are private companies trying ot make money so I would fully expect them to have similar infrastructures in place.
Click to expand...

Most media outlets simply want the "horse race" angle, so they aren't contracting for the level of sophistication that political campaigns seek. Most media outlet polls have less than ten questions centering on candidates and a limited set of issues. The kind of comprehensive polling done by campaigns usually has between 30 and 40 questions.
 
Polling is 20th century

I think it far more sophisticated than a conscience physical poll. Internet preferences, shopping preferences, exercise patterns, what one eats.
A person living on a vegan diet and reading that lifestyle information would naturally be a target of (example only) Bernie Sanders.
A person reading hunting and buying camo would fall into an algorithm that would target them for (example only) Trump.

I found it curious that HRC had a 65% approval before the election and it was in the 30s by Nov 2016.
Nothing changed.
The disinformation campaign focused on the Clinton Foundation for example.

I am more aware of negative Trump info than say --- thethe ---
I am more aware of immigrant success stories than thethe


Why do I see more success stories surrounding ACA than others --- I am of that demographic

Campaign data is sophisticated beyond my and probably anyone here's comprehension.
That is what Russia wanted.


To be clear, a Russian national planting a yard sign for dog catcher is illegal
let alone dealing in data involving a Presidential election
 
Last edited:
50PoundHead said:
Most media outlets simply want the "horse race" angle, so they aren't contracting for the level of sophistication that political campaigns seek. Most media outlet polls have less than ten questions centering on candidates and a limited set of issues. The kind of comprehensive polling done by campaigns usually has between 30 and 40 questions.
Click to expand...

Its certainly impossible for me to speak to the level of sophistication that exists currently for political campaigns. The only thing I can say is that I was curious on polling methodology so viewed some of the larger releases such as CBS/Rasmussian/etc... and those included very detailed questions as well as the allocation between different demographics. To me it seemed extremely detailed but again I can't compare to what political campaigns are doing currently.
 
57Brave said:
Polling is 20th century

I think it far more sophisticated than a conscience physical poll. Internet preferences, shopping preferences, exercise patterns, what one eats.
A person living on a vegan diet and reading that lifestyle information would naturally be a target of (example only) Bernie Sanders.
A person reading hunting and buying camo would fall into an algorithm that would target them for (example only) Trump.

I found it curious that HRC had a 65% approval before the election and it was in the 30s by Nov 2016.
Nothing changed.
The disinformation campaign focused on the Clinton Foundation for example.

I am more aware of negative Trump info than say --- thethe ---
I am more aware of immigrant success stories than thethe
Click to expand...

Considering I follow liberal personalities and news outlets I disagree on the first party. We are overwhelmed with negative coverage of Trump so everyone pretty much knows about that.

And the immigrant success stories are legal immigration which we are all for. But if you care to research there has been way too much crime initiated by illegal immigrants that should never have been here. Go tell the families of murdered teenagers that illegal immigration isn't a national crisis.

But overal, I agree with your point. Polling is irrelevant in comparison to other data that is public ally available and ones that were shared by Facebook .
 
those personalities and news outlets sell soap
you are overwhelmed with negative coverage of Trump because he is in the soup for ... fill in the blank
Plus he was born in Kenya. :)

to your second point, that has been debunked all week after Trump said as much

and again all of this is noise because it is illegal for Russian (any) Nationals to participate in any way in elections.
And the extension of that it is illegal to aid or abet such participation
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
And polling agencies don't have sophisticated operations? These are private companies trying ot make money so I would fully expect them to have similar infrastructures in place.
Click to expand...

no...as in many fields where the data revolution has spread, collecting and analyzing the data is an expensive proposition and what insiders have access to far exceeds what is publicly available...any serious campaign at the presidential level (and often senate and governor) has a team of data scientists similar to what baseball front offices have

have you paid attention to what that outside group did in the Alabama senate race where they mounted a campaign against Roy Moore based on some of the tactics the Russians used in 2016?
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
no...as in many fields where the data revolution has spread, collecting and analyzing the data is an expensive proposition and what insiders have access to far exceeds what is publicly available...any serious campaign at the presidential level (and often senate and governor) has a team of data scientists similar to what baseball front offices have

have you paid attention to what that outside group did in the Alabama senate race where they mounted a campaign against Roy Moore based on some of the tactics the Russians used in 2016?
Click to expand...

I saw a headline on that regarding some false reporting against moore but he deserved to lose so it didnt interest me as much as other stories.

I still think that polling is inefficient as it requires truthful responses. Data crawls on actual behavior as sold by facebook is where the real treasure trove lies
 
thethe said:
I saw a headline on that regarding some false reporting against moore but he deserved to lose so it didnt interest me as much as other stories.

I still think that polling is inefficient as it requires truthful responses. Data crawls on actual behavior as sold by facebook is where the real treasure trove lies
Click to expand...

we will find out more in due course about the collaboration between the campaign and the Russians...it extended to sharing data on a fairly granular basis and to coordination of messaging...it went well beyond Manafartov sharing some internal polling
 
Jonathan Karl of ABC News: Did you know Manafartov was sharing polling data with the Russians.

Trump: I didn't know anything about it. Nothing about it.

Keep an eye on this space.
 
nsacpi said:
no...as in many fields where the data revolution has spread, collecting and analyzing the data is an expensive proposition and what insiders have access to far exceeds what is publicly available...any serious campaign at the presidential level (and often senate and governor) has a team of data scientists similar to what baseball front offices have

have you paid attention to what that outside group did in the Alabama senate race where they mounted a campaign against Roy Moore based on some of the tactics the Russians used in 2016?
Click to expand...

If they are the ones collecting said data. Like Facebook, via their platform. Otherwise these enterprises are working with the same resources, using the same tools -- which are absolutely in the public space.

Also, I think we're drastically overstating the importance of data in the context of this discussion.
 
Hawk said:
Also, I think we're drastically overstating the importance of data in the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...


Paul Manafort made millions around the world by interpreting campaign data as did Karl rove - to name 2
Why else would these toxic people be paid exurbanite amounts for an overstated skill

why was Manafort hired in the first place ?
........

Bear in mind, there were five targeted counties that swung the electoral college.
Thinking the targeted data was key to those five being identified and how were they held in line.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-pollster-says-the-election-came-down-to-five-counties
 
I’m curious to know how much help the various, er, external efforts were to the Trump campaign. But it’s mostly just an academic curiousity. As I’ve said before, it’s currently unknown and possibly unknowable. I’m primarily interested in to what degree—if any—the Trump campaign knew about and or even abetted these efforts.

You can make the case that it didn’t swing the election. That’s certainly possible. It’s also possible that it did. I’m basically agnostic on that question.

But there are all kinds of tangential questions that arise from the issue that were and are relevant, not least of which involve the actions and intent of Trump and his brain trust. You can’t just hand-wave your way around those questions.
 
let me repeat, it is illegal to have a foreign national so much as help plant a yard sign.
Regardless it's effectiveness.

The Trump organization knowingly and willingly broke the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top