Rice may be a starch, but for Republicans the name is red meat. The story that Susan Rice was unmasking incidentally gathered names of Trump associates was first pushed by Mike Cernovich, recently profiled by '60 Minutes' as a major player in the fake news industry. One of the listed sources for the story is Joe Digenova, who Rachel Maddow exposed as a long time GOP provocateur.
Eli Lake, a conservative Bloomberg reporter, adds credence to the story that Susan Rice unmasked the names of some Trump associates. Allow me to stifle a yawn. Requesting unmasking the names of Americans inadvertently gathered when legally surveilling foreign targets was Rice's job as National Security Advisor. If two Russian diplomats say, "We think we can leverage, 'blank' to lift sanctions," it was her job to unmask the name to get the context. The suggestion that she systematically requested unmasking of Trump associates is nonsensical. You don't know who is masked until you unmask. That precludes Trump centric searches. Nor is there any allegation that she leaked the material. She did not use intelligence sources for political purposes.
That dubious distinction falls to the Trump White House. We now know that heavy intelligence resources have been used to attempt to backup a ridiculous tweet. No doubt hundreds of hours were spent to find the tidbits leaked to Nunes.
Nor does the Rice distraction in any way vindicate Trump's tweet. If I say, with no proof, that my neighbor killed a cat, finding out that a mouse died two blocks away is of no moment.
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Maddow. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Romney's Lament: He Blinded Me With Science
Fittingly, the party that embraces Creationism and rejects global warming, got a cold shoulder from the evolving science of data mining. In this weeks issue of Time, Michael Scherer has an excellent article on the "cave", the windowless room in the Chicago Headquarters where techies crunched data.
The scientific method is to constantly test, and refine assumptions. Through testing, followed by data analysis, the Obama campaign knew who to ask for online contributions, and what message to use in solicitations. One example given by Scherer is that the dinner with George Clooney raffle, showed that women ages 40-49 in close geographic proximity (Southern California) to the dinner were most receptive to lottery solicitations. So an east coast based celebrity, with appeal to that demographic, Sarah Jessica Parker, was chosen for the next dinner raffle.
Algorithms were developed and tested for voters most likely to support Obama. This was used in registration drives. Ad buys, to turn out and persuade voters, were done in house. This allowed precise placement of ads, utilizing polling data, to reach a targeted demographic with a tailored message. Social media was maximized. Someone who had downloaded the Obama app who had friends in swing states was sent a message to forward to five of those friends.
Romney ran a faith based campaign. Unlike science, which revises assumptions to correspond with data, faith is an immovable object. Facts must be revised to fit the assumptions. The guiding assumptions were (1) that Republican enthusiasm would result in a large turnout, (2) disillusionment would drive down Democratic turnout compared to 2008, particularly among minorities and the young. Therefore, if Romney could win independents, he would be president. Romney won independents by 5 points. On election day he, and his campaign, were certain they had won.
Based on the Romney assumptions, most of the public pollsters, whose livelihood depends on accuracy, were wrong because they were oversampling Democrats. The polls were correct. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6 percent. The key is that Obama won moderates by 15 percent while loosing independents by 5. There was only a tiny squishy tootsie roll center of unaffiliated, undecided moderate independents. The rest were hard coated partisan blue or red voters. Some Republicans may have self identified as independents, because they were even more conservative than the GOP.
Romney's one foray into modern electioneering was Orca, an expensive get out the vote mobile app, developed to communicate the voting of targeted voters between headquarters and the field. It was a beached whale. Accepted on faith, it was never field tested. It crashed. The Romney campaign had to rely on CNN for voting information. It could have been worse. They might have needed to depend on Rachel Maddow.
The scientific method is to constantly test, and refine assumptions. Through testing, followed by data analysis, the Obama campaign knew who to ask for online contributions, and what message to use in solicitations. One example given by Scherer is that the dinner with George Clooney raffle, showed that women ages 40-49 in close geographic proximity (Southern California) to the dinner were most receptive to lottery solicitations. So an east coast based celebrity, with appeal to that demographic, Sarah Jessica Parker, was chosen for the next dinner raffle.
Algorithms were developed and tested for voters most likely to support Obama. This was used in registration drives. Ad buys, to turn out and persuade voters, were done in house. This allowed precise placement of ads, utilizing polling data, to reach a targeted demographic with a tailored message. Social media was maximized. Someone who had downloaded the Obama app who had friends in swing states was sent a message to forward to five of those friends.
Romney ran a faith based campaign. Unlike science, which revises assumptions to correspond with data, faith is an immovable object. Facts must be revised to fit the assumptions. The guiding assumptions were (1) that Republican enthusiasm would result in a large turnout, (2) disillusionment would drive down Democratic turnout compared to 2008, particularly among minorities and the young. Therefore, if Romney could win independents, he would be president. Romney won independents by 5 points. On election day he, and his campaign, were certain they had won.
Based on the Romney assumptions, most of the public pollsters, whose livelihood depends on accuracy, were wrong because they were oversampling Democrats. The polls were correct. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6 percent. The key is that Obama won moderates by 15 percent while loosing independents by 5. There was only a tiny squishy tootsie roll center of unaffiliated, undecided moderate independents. The rest were hard coated partisan blue or red voters. Some Republicans may have self identified as independents, because they were even more conservative than the GOP.
Romney's one foray into modern electioneering was Orca, an expensive get out the vote mobile app, developed to communicate the voting of targeted voters between headquarters and the field. It was a beached whale. Accepted on faith, it was never field tested. It crashed. The Romney campaign had to rely on CNN for voting information. It could have been worse. They might have needed to depend on Rachel Maddow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)