This blog has been updated on the election night. Its clear there was no election-altering gain to Democrats so this blog is moot. I will leave the words here but am overstiking them, as no longer relevant.
The Communities Dominate blog is the best source for politics-related data systems in use. It has the only published case study comparing the old method and the new, tested against each other, with all the metrics. Its about the only reason anyone in politics might have heard of the CDB blog or ‘that Tomi Ahonen’. But everybody in the data room of Hillary’s team and the few data guys on Trump’s team knows me and has read this blog. this is the definitive blog for data systems used in politics. The analysis of data systems in politics, written on this blog, are referenced in many published books about politics!
You are right now reading some utter bullshit by people from one side, and getting total radio silence from the other side. Those willing to speak are throwing about big words trying to impress like ‘Big Data’ and 'psychographics' and '100 point propensity scores'.
They are BULLSHITTING YOU. This is THE DEFINITIVE BLOG about those topics, at least where it relates to political campaigns. So this blog article on 4 November is just a brief commentary now, before Election Day, to clarify some basics. Let me start with an analogy
Putting bigger sails onto a sailship does not magically convert that ship into a steamship. It would need radical redesign, including adding a big heavy engine and its fuel, and punching a hole into the boat, through which the propeller shaft has to come, to put the propeller onto your ship. But a steam ship not only can move faster than fastest sailships, a steamship can do what sailships cannot, such as steam directly against he wind, and steam at full speed even when there is no wind at all.
Trump has put bigger sails on a sailship. But in the last election, Obama introduced the world’s first steamship and it utterly crushed Romney’s sailship (that was the fastest sailship ever made). And now, in the interim four years, Hillary has put a bigger ENGINE in Obama’s steamship. That is the data wars. Trump used an obsolete design but put bigger sails on it. Hillary took the bleeding edge design, and put an even better engine into it. This is not going to be close. The data wars will contribute 4% to Hillary’s victory margin on November 8.
ITS AN ARMS RACE
The data system wars are an ‘arms race’. Both sides are building their systems (or WERE building it, now four days from the election, they are just running them). We saw the systems used to powerful effect in 2004 (Howard Dean campaign). Then to DEVASTATING effect in 2008 (Obama vs McCain). The data wars DECIDED the race in 2012. (Obama vs Romney). The data system disadvantage by Republicans was so immense and decisive, it was listed as one of the most important things the GOP has to change for 2016, or else it could not win the election.
This is not what some obscure tech author of 12 books tells you on his silly blog. This what Reince Priebus wrote in the 2012 Republican Party ‘Autopsy’ report of Mitt Romney’s loss. They had been OUTCLASSED by Obama’s data machine. A machine that we calculated on this blog in 2012, right after the election - that it delivered 4 out of every 5 votes that Obama won. And Obama’s margin of victory was 5%. But the LAST POLLING of the weekend and Monday just before election day, said it was a 1% race. The WHOLE ELECTION MARGIN of victory for Obama - was generated with the data machine. The whole election margin! The Data machine pushed a 1% election nail-biter, into a clear dominating crushing victory of 5% for Obama. The data machine did that. I reported it on this blog, calculated all the math. The Republican Autopsy said they were outclassed and lost because of the data wars. The US campaigns KNOW this. The Ted Cruz campaign said the advantage of a modern data system is between 2.5% and 5% on election day. They essentially CONFIRMED MY MATH. All data engineers in US politics know this. The data nerds. And they all have read my blog.
TWO RIVAL TECHNOLOGIES
The two systems are not built on the same principle. Its like comparing a car to an airplane. Both have an engine. Both can move people. Except one is far faster and can do things the other cannot. A car cannot drive over the seas. An airplane can fly over the ocean exactly as easily as flying over a corn field. What Romney had, was a good car. What Obama had was the first airplane.
What Trump team now tries to tell us, is that they have a ‘Big Data’ system. BULLSHIT. Its a traditional psychographic scoring model. Like all database systems of the past. It makes guesses about us. It does that very well (they bought the service from a British company called Cambridge Analytica, paying at least 5 million for their data and analytics). What Trump has is a car with an airplane engine. It can't fly.
The Trump system is LARGE. That is not what ‘Big’ means in Big Data. Big Data is a revolutionary database methodology by which every indivdual consumer is individually measured, and typically CONTACTED. Cambridge Analytica has 230 US million voters in its database. It has NOT contacted them. It has NOT MEASURED their performance. It has run 100,000 surveys of voters to get profiles. And then assigns profiles and segments this database based on their magazine subscriptions and cable TV subscriptions and credit card scores and their address, age, educational background and voter registration etc information. That is not Big Data. That is traditional database of a consumer population. Its just very large.
Big Data contacts EACH VOTER INDIVIDUALLY. Yes. Each voter individually. That is what Obama did, that was so radical in 2012. Not that they had 100 point scores for each voter. That was a tech detail, like yes, a car has an engine and an airplane has an engine, and both engines have horsepower. You could run a car on an airplane engine or an airplane on a car engine (back in the early days of propeller-driven planes obviously, not jet engines). Both have an engine. But if you put an airplane engine in a car, it will not suddely FLY. You have to BUILD an AIRPLANE to fly, with wings, etc.
So the METHOD that gets us to ‘Big Data’ is precise technical issue, to do something on consumer customer base ever attempted before 2012. To go through the trouble of contacting every consumer (ie voter for an election). Seeing what they said on Facebook, did they download the YouTube video, did they forward it. To call that voter, talk to them. To go visit their home, talk to them. To send emails and SMS text messages to those voters. CONTACT THEM PERSONALLY. That is Big Data.
That was the bleeding edge of 2012. Nobody has this. Facebook, Google, Amazon, they did not bave Big Data until 2012, the Obama team decided to create this system (now many bleeding edge companies are doing similar systems, obviously).
Romney built a traditional database (like Trump now). It was built on the best data insights of the Republican party, and the known performance of the 2008 Obama system. It was built with a huge data staff of 30 data professionals, cost 50 million dollars, built with Microsoft. It was a rush-project done in six months. It was finished so close to election day, they didn’t have time to test it (the system failed in North Carolina on Election Day where they had to run blind).
Obama built a bleeding-edge data concept on something never done in politics before. Even though they WON the data wars of 2008. They decided to do something radical. They spent 100 million dollars and had a staff that reached 120 data scientists and built a whole array of systems over 18 months. The Obama system was built with Google, Facebook and Amazon as tech partners. It has a massively parallel database system spread over HP servers and resulted in one of the 20 largest databases ON THE PLANET. Just built for one election.
We measured the performance of the two on this blog. The Romney system DID PERFORM. It BOOSTED Republican turnout over what John McCain had in 2008. The Romney team did believe they had won the election, powered by this powerful new data machine. Except it was a total useless toy effort, compared with what Obama’s machine. If Romney had managed to build a better Bow-and-Arrow weapon, Obama had introduced the rifle. If Romney had built a faster propeller-driven airplane, Obama introduced the jet engine. If Romney built a faster sailship, Obama introduced the steamship. If Romney made a stronger explosive dynamite, Obama detonated the first atom bomb. There is NO CONTEST between these two methods.
The two are night-and-day. The Obama system is 4.5 TIMES BETTER. Not 4.5 PERCENT better (in a year when the election was decided by 5%). It was not 45% better. the Obama machine is 4.5 TIMES BETTER. 350% better. Understand. One side has something that is not 100% better or 200% better than your system. Its something that is 350% better than yours. When you spend a million dollars on a TV ad campaign that boosts your voter turnout by 10,000 votes. And the other side uses their system to run a better TV ad campaign - that also costs 1 million dollars, but they get 45,000 votes!!! 4.5 time better! 350% better!.
That is what Obama built in 2012. That is what was called ‘Narwhal’. That was using the bleeding-edge tech called Big Data. I wrote several blogs about it then and did a total analysis of the two systems compared head-to-head, written for MARKETING people, in other industries than politics, that I published here in early 2015. This is THE DEFINITIVE article about what is Big Data and why its the new era in databases. Why it makes psychographics like used by Romney (and now Trump) obsolete.
Obsolete.
VERY VERY SIMPLE EXPLANATION
Lets take a very simple example for you. I am a 56 year old white Finnish man. So, if you use Trump’s method, psychographics, you will find from my demographic data that I am a man. Thus you won’t need to target ads for women, like selling tampons, to me. It does work. Its far better than nothing. If also will find out that I am unmarried. No need to send ads about babyfood to me. And yes, there is very smart analytics that would detect, out of my purchase or web browsing behavior if suddenly I was expecting a baby haha (if say I was expecting suddenly to become a first-time father). Yes. the predictive modeling can be remarkably accurate.
Now the problems. I’m a 56 year old white man. From Finland. If you profile me, against any other 56 year old white Finnish MEN, anywhere on the planet, you will find they wear blue jeans. Finnish men hate to dress up ‘formally’. We are notorious about that. Some of the sloppiest dressers of Europe (some would not be so kind, and just say THE most sloppiest dressers - Finnish men, the women are gorgeous but us Finnish men, gosh). Ok. So he’s older, pretty affluent, lets target Tomi’s clothing ads as premium-brand blue jeans (and T-shirts and casual wear). This is what psychographics gets you. Those who have seen me, they know. Tomi doesn’t OWN blue jeans. I wear tailored suits and tailored WHITE shirts with loud (some say ugly) silk ties. Even on holidays and on vacations. I am so not-Finnish-male about this. Your psychogrphic model fails you on the EXCEPTIONS to the rules. Like in this case, what I happen to like to wear. For MOST men it will score them correctly. Me? They get wrong every time.
You think that's an isolated example? Take my music. I’m 56 years old, white guy, from Finland. What is my music taste. It HAS to be rock music. Hard rock, heavy metal. ZZ Top, Rolling Stones, Status Quo, Led Zeppelin, etc. Has to be. Or it could be classical music or jazz. But very likely rock. Heavy metal rock music. Essentially all of my peers of my age like that kind of music. Me? My fave music is rap music. Its ‘black’ music that is for YOUNGER generations. There are plenty of rap music fans (and a rap music scene) in Finland but they are all younger. Nobody age 56 in Finland ‘likes’ rap music! But I do. And I fell in love with rap BEFORE I moved to live in New York City. I was a fan of the music from its birth when most said rap is not music. Again the psychographics systems work in most cases, but fail with the exceptions.
A FASTER SAILSHIP OR REVOLUTIONARY STEAMSHIP
Psychographics works. It is FAR better than nothing. Romney built the most powerful database system the Republicans had ever had. They used it for targeting Get-Out-The-Voter efforts in 2012, with the help of 30 data professionals and Microsoft - and they truly built the state-of-the-art of psychographics. And it worked.
Except it is obsolete. They are building the most streamlined oceanliner sailship, when Obama has introduced steamships that can forge straight against the wind, and even run full speed when there is a lull and no wind at all. The steamship killed the sailing ships as commercial vessels (but sailing then became a leisure activity). That is the kind of revolution we saw in 2012. And the Republican party admitted it. They knew they had been defeated and knew they had to build a system like Obama’s.
Well. What did Trump do? He said he doesn’t believe in data. He ran most of his primary race without data. After he won his nomination, the Cruz team showed Trump what all they could do, and when Manafort came in to provide some sane professional campaign elements to Trump, he did get convinced to do some datamining. So he hired Cambridge Analytica, who has what? A Big Data system? No. Cambridge Analytica is a psychographic database segmentation system exactly like Romney’s except its a bit more modern. It is very good. But Trump is again doing a faster sailship. It’s because Trump is a cheapskate and learned that he’d have to pay 100 million dollars to do anything near what Obama had and Hillary now has. So its far easier to just outsource that work to the British and get their insights.
What was it used for? It was used to target TV ads, online ads, and help in the fund-raising targeting (the Nigerian money scam type of emails that Trump sends to his gullible supporters). Yeah. It works for that.
BUT IN HILLARYLAND
Meanwhile. What has Hillary done? She has vastly expanded the Big Data based system she has, the old Obama 2012 system now far upgraded and expanded. It drives every activity they do. So one of the details. They run 1,000 simulations every night on their system of the election. Not one simulation every night. Not ten. Not one hundred. They run 1,000 simulations every night! They test EVERYTHING. Now that Melania talked about bullying, what is the impact to the voters without any response? What if we run the Trump is a bully ad? What if we run the Hillary is the woman standing up against bullies. What if we run Melania’s words on a new experimental ad against TRUMP. And so forth. They run 1,000 simulations every night. This is a campaign run on DATA. Not on intuition or gut feeling or what pops into Trump’s head any moment. Hillary’s team is the most professional campaign in history. Driven by data.
So how do they get their data into the system? They run a DAILY POLL that is MASSIVE. They run over 100,000 surveys EVERY DAY. They run over 10,000 interviews in EVERY BATTLEGROUND STATE every day. That is perfect precision on the voter feeling on any issue, in every state, to every conveivable voting demographic. But that is only the ‘thermometer’. Is there a problem. Out of the survey snapshots, every day, they run a deeper analysis on whatever is right now in the news, the FBI letter, Trump’s Goon Squad of Voter Intimidation, or Melania promising to end bullying or Trump and his Moscow money connection etc. They have DETAILED surveys every night on a fracition of the total survey size, at about 1 in 10. So they still get instant and statistically very accurate feedback on ALL issues in politics, daily.
While we’re on polls. Trump fired his pollster and isn’t paying his bills for polling work already done. He owes his pollster 750,000 dollars. That would get you about one survey in the 13 battlegound states of the kind that Hillary runs EVERY DAY. But the Trump internal poll told him the truth, he has lost the election (which is why Trump got so morose back when this dawned on him, and then his response is to kill the messenger so don’t pay the pollster).
EVERY VOTER IS INDIVIDUALLY CONTACTED
Sorry, back to Hillary. After the polling, they do IN-PERSON TALKS to every voter (in battleground states). Sometimes they knock on a door, they see the Trump-Pence yard sign, and the door is opened by an older man who says, “I’m voting for Trump and so is my wife, go away or I will call the police!” And thats the length of that discussion. They STILL CONTACTED the voter, PERSONALLY. Its absolutely vital for Big Data process, to know every consumer, whether they love you or hate you. (I talk about this in my big primer about this process).
So they visit some homes. And others they contact by telephone or email or Facebook or SMS text message. And then they constantly refine and expand that knowledge base. Who is a supporter, has forwarded YouTube videos (on EITHER SIDE)? Who attended their rally where Bernie Sanders spoke? Who is volunteering time, who has contributed money, etc etc etc? Not just voters, they also have ineligble voters who are supporters, like say kids too young to vote. Or a spouce who is not a US citizen, etc. Can still be a Hillary supporter. There was a story that they found women who were secretly Hillary supporters, who were married to Trump-supporting Republican husbands - who themselves were Republican women - but now will vote for Hillary. The Hillary team knows EVERY VOTER (in battleground states) including these hidden voters. In 2012 the Obama team contacted undecided voters on average 5 TIMES PERSONALLY in the battleground states! That is how you win elections!
On election day, Hillary knows every voter who is registered to vote. They know the registered voters who have already voted early. They know of registered voters who have not voted yet, if they are Hillary supporters. They know what those voters do, if they are decided, and what issues matter to them. The Hillary team even knows which methods of contact that given individual voter prefers for CONTACT. Do they want to be contacted by phone and talk to someone or contacted via email or Facebook or - most popular of course, is SMS text messaging. Hillary’s process will not waste any calls or contacts on people who have already voted, or who are not registered, or who don’t like Hillary and would vote for Trump.
LIKE STEALING CANDY FROM A BABY
Trump has psychographic voter profiles and segments. They have decided that because Tomi Ahonen is a 56 year old white man who lives in a rich part of town, he is a likely Republican voter. And they target me for a get-out-the-voter effort. Even as (if I was a US citizen) they would then activate a voter FOR THE OTHER SIDE. The Hillary team knows NOT TO prod the enemy, don’t incite them to go and vote. If its a Trump supporter, don’t prod them. The Hillary team can target every single one of the 200 million registered voters in the USA, individually and personally. Yes. true target to the precision of one (in battleground states). They will not bother with that precision for practical reasons (a practical resolution of segmentation is 10,000 segments, it means that every single person is targeted so ‘uniquely’ that in their lifetime they are unlikely to get to know another person of that identical segment). If 130 million people vote, and say 70 million vote for Hillary, it means they will end up doing about granularity to individual segments of about 7,000 voters. Any TV or radio or Facebook or YouTube or Twitter campaign that gets to about 7,000 voters - IS WORTH DOING by the Hillary machine!
Trump does one standard TV ad in all 13 battleground states, that reaches 20 million voters. Hillary’s machine can get 2,900 SEPARATE marketing messages AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED to target 2,900 varieties of are you white or black or Hispanic or Asian-American; are you woman or man; are you gay or straight; are you Christian or Jewish or Mormon or Muslim or atheist or Hindu or Buddhist; are you in college or retired or working; are you unemployed, are you ex-military, are you without healthcare insurance, etc etc etc. The Hillary system is a radar. The Trump system is a binoculars. Yes you can aim your cannon better with binoculars than without but if you have radar, you will always win.
Ok. I wanted to put this blog out here for now. What Trump has is an updated version of what failed for Romney in 2012. What Hillary has is a VASTLY expanded and refined version of the new way to do political targeting. She will get AT LEAST 4% more votes because of this system on Tuesday, over what the last polls tell us. At least 4% more votes. If the average of polls for this weekend say, say its a 7% election for Hillary, then add 4% and Hillary will win by 11%. Take this to the bank. We have MEASURED it and if you don’t believe it, read these blogs. The math is all there.
Definitive Study of Obama vs Romney data wars 2012
Application of Big Data lesson of 2012 applied to modern marketing in 2015 (if you have not read about these matters, start here, its not too technical)
The Latest Insights and Updates to the Data Wars of 2012, written in late 2015
I will of course write a full analysis of this race after we get the details, after the election is over. The data machine is the biggest engine driving Hillary’s victory. It is a ‘secret weapon’. Some of the info of 2012 was so well hidden, the RESPONSE to Obama 2012 built by say Ted Cruz in 2015, was not strong enough to deal with what Hillary has now, because they hid part of their ability back then.
But this blog will get you all the data we can find, and crunch the numbers again, and we’ll see how big the impact of the data advantage was for the Democrats. Its about time the Republicans stop playing around with toys, and get serious and build a proper Big Data system, not a toy using psychographics. And what Cambridge Analytics has, is a large database yes, its not Big Data. Its nowhere close. Its just the old thing we saw with Romney, with a bit more precision. A better sailship. A faster propeller-driven airplane. What Trump is driving is children’s toy car, the battery-driven kind of ‘Ferrari’ the child can sit in and drive in the yard. Hillary has a proper RACE CAR. And its now been fine-tuned and has an even more powerful engine. Oh, and she has a TEAM of engineers to keep it in peak performance. And now these two will race each other. I am laughing so hard. Psychographics? That is what Trump bought? In 2016? After the Romney Autopsy? I am laughing hysterically...
The Republican Orca system had a meltdown on election day. Did tbe Republicans do test runs?
An untested IT system will invariably fail.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/inside-team-romneys-whale-of-an-it-meltdown/
Posted by: Winter | November 04, 2016 at 06:57 PM
Hi Winter
Yeah we knew that, we reported on it at the time. The Orca System was delivered so late, they had no training on it, it wasn't tested and it had its first full run on election day. It crashed many times and in the state of North Carolina the system could not be put into use at all.
Meanwhile Obama's Narwhal system, far larger, was fully deployed, fully tested - all staff were fully TRAINED on it, and knew how to use it. Oh, the Romney Orca system had even problems getting users on it, as the user manuals were supplied on the Monday-Tuesday night to users haha...
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | November 04, 2016 at 07:26 PM
@Tomi
Yes indeed. But did they learn? Did they do full scale "dress rehearsels"? That is expensive and time consuming.
An untested IT system does not work.
Posted by: Winter | November 04, 2016 at 07:44 PM
Hi Winter
So for this year, Trump does NOT have a field organization to use such a system at all. The Cambridge Analytica system is used to target their TV ad and online ad effort. Trump does not have any level of required volunteers to take advantage of a data system on election day even if they had built one. And they didn't.
Now the GOP, that is the mystery. They DO have a GOTV effort and its an evolution of Romney in 2012. Part of that is THEIR data system which we do not know much about, but which sounds a lot like Cambridge Analytica's system (which sounds like Ted Cruz's system too). They also talk about those 100 point scores on two axis (copying what I reported here on this blog about the Obama system of 2012, early on; while later we found out the Obama system actually had five, not 2 scales each of 100 points).
The key difference is, that we do know that the GOP is contacting voters, knocking on doors, telephoning them etc. Are they doing it in line with a demographics-based model like the Cambridge Analytica model - ie layering some data on top of the CA model, or are they actually buiding a Big Data system, at least perhaps partially, and contacting not just some friendly voters but deliberately all voters.
Then the internal polling. The Hillary team runs a massive survey daily to know to the n'th degree the precise race every day. Why would the GOP do this on the national race? It doesn't make sense for them to pay for that which would ONLY benefit Trump - and not have Trump pay for it. If they do ANY polling, it will be only local polling for local races - like its highly likely they ARE doing that in Wisconsin because most of the top brass of the GOP are from that state and seem to be devoting a lot of their resources in getting re-elected. But national polling? So if you HAVE some degree of a data system of many/most voters - but then don't know how their opinions are shifting daily, then it runs the danger of being static and obsolete by election day. But there is no reporting of any major polling expenditure of the GOP. There IS big expenditure every month from Hillary on polling.
It may be that the GOP has a kind of 'hybrid' or 'semi Big Data' system built on top of Cambridge Analytica, that they populate partly with voter data. If you are deeply resource-deprived, then there is not much sense in bothering to go ask known Democrats about might they like Trump. It makes sense first to try to find all of your own flock. So if the Republicans have a partially filled data system of their own voters (in battleground states) then it likely has mostly registered Republicans who have been contacted, and after they are reached, start to contact Independents.
Now. WHY would you do this? Its primary purpose is to drive election day turnout. Lets take military analogy here. If you have a radar that sees 20 kilometers out, but your guns only can shoot 10 km distance, there is not much sense in trying to increase your radar range to 50 km. If the GOP is in short supply of volunteers to do any election-day phone banking and door-knocking and driving people to the voting places then who cares if they can target all voters? But the Democrats gosh, I saw the Hillary team talking about having over 2 million volunteers (may be they meant people who have donated money) but still, they have the resources on election day to take advantage of such detail and precision and to use that kind of information.
Of the Hillary machine, we have at least the basic level of where they were before the upgrades and its pretty awesome performance.
On Trump, we know its an outsourced data mining operation that uses profiling on various voter data. Its not a Big Data system but it could be used for rudimentary targeting. Its best use is in stuff not so precise, like TV ads.
Of the GOP machine, that is the best mystery in this set. I don't see the scale of their effort to build a full Big Data system and have its data also populated and updated but it could be a partial system, kind of hybrid - and if so it will be BETTER than what Romney had in 2012, and better than what Trump has now. If so, then the DOWN-TICKET races will be far more competitive than the Presidential race (as also many polls seem to suggest).
Back to dress rehearsals. Hillary obviously has, and their team is tested. They've trained all users, they've run full mock-elections etc. Last time there was a story about them testing if the whole HQ data center went down, how could they run Election Day without any input from HQ etc...
But the GOP? I'm imagining its always a local effort. So it is likely to be strong in states where the GOP has a strong organization like Wisconsin or Ohio. And it may be a big mess in states that have had internal strife and turnover with fired staff etc like say North Carolina. But you're correct, the system should be fully deployed and tested and trained before Election Day. The earlier the full data system project was completed, the more time there is to do bug-fixes and testing. The more money you have, and the more complete the starting point was, the more you can focus on these. The GOP however, is underfunded, running their project in parallel with the Trump campaign and starting from near-scratch because it was supposed to be that the candidate would cover this part of the election. So at least to some degree, this is a rush-job, emergency job, done under considerable stress.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | November 04, 2016 at 08:36 PM
@crazy-person: "Why is there no mention on your blog about Hillary's voter fraud?"
After 30 years of probing, hundreds of millions of dollars put into the effort, investigations up the wazoo by prosecutors, special prosecutors, congressional committees, special committees, subpoenas that can scoop up stuff that only the feds can reach ... and what is the result?
Nothing. No convictions, no indictments. The only thing pinned on Hillary is bad optics.
But you are in luck buddy. The Republicans in congress have promised to lock up her presidency in useless witch-hunts until the end of time. No judicial appointments at any level, block any laws (if Hillary is for it, they are against it), do you know if they can block her cabinet selections as well? That should really help Russia to grab bits of Europe back into the empire.
But hey, go with your conscience and vote the Trump-Putin ticket. GOP ... from the party of Lincoln to the party of treason in only 160 years.
Posted by: Millard Filmore | November 05, 2016 at 02:03 AM
@crazy-person: one more thought, copied from a comment on wonkette.com
"A Grumpy Cat
THIS. All of this. It’s like Penn said on an episode of BS – they couldn’t cover up fucking Watergate, FFS. But Hillz is running a criminal enterprise the size of fucking Canada, while leaving no evidence??"
If she is THAT good, maybe you should vote for her.
http://wonkette.com/608251/radicalized-fbi-sleeper-cell-probably-led-by-rudy-giuliani
Posted by: Millard Filmore | November 05, 2016 at 02:49 AM
Tomi:
Re: The shocking incompetence of the U.S. press...
The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign
In total, network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.
This is unfortunate because emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit
Posted by: grouch | November 05, 2016 at 03:54 AM
Tomi,
How dependent is Hillary's system on the internet? Could a massive DDoS attack negate her advantage?
It seems to me (and I'm just guessing here), that her system relies on communication that could be crippled.
Maybe I'm just paranoid. ;-)
Posted by: Brent Logan | November 05, 2016 at 04:03 AM
LOL. The trolls have come out of the woodwork! That's often a sign that you are hitting too close to home for them to feel comfortable.
I did cold calls on Fortune 500 companies. Our firm ran a database of companies, their staff, including who was directly responsible for projects, and who made the cash decisions. I used that database to decide who to target, how big the market was for products, etc. It also covered a wide range of other things that were specific to our business.
Was it as good as Orca? No. But it helped. A lot.
It started out much like the Psychographic style of database, which we then tweaked based on contacts with potential customers. It morphed to something part way between Psychographics and Big Data. We didn't do test runs, for our purposes that wasn't necessary because often projects took four to five years to come to completion, and our customers would make decisions two to three years before 'Election Night' because of design times (we were much more like Qualcomm than Nokia).
You did not contact a customer who was using Gasoline engines with Diesel engine products. You mentioned the Diesel products in case that customer decided to introduce a Diesel line, but you went in depth on Gasoline with that customer and vice versa.
I have to admit I'd really love to see the Obama/Clinton big data system. I also at one time worked as a programmer and did some database design work myself, so I have an interest in the system from two sides of my work experience, though I'll happily admit that I was a far better sales and marketing person than I am a programmer.
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 04:20 AM
Huge voter turnout in Nevada.
The early polls will be open as long as there is a line.
@RalstonReports 33m33 minutes ago
50,000 threshold officially crossed at 8pm in Clark County.
50,106 and counting.
What a spectacle.
Posted by: Millard Filmore | November 05, 2016 at 04:49 AM
Not sure about arrows, but spears have defeated rifles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
There are plenty of requirements: Home ground advantage, 10:1 numerical advantage, first rate strategy against a commander not following basic defense and reconnaissance procedures and suicidal bravery. While you are at it, throw in enemy office politics, perfect weather and an eclipse.
The rifles were supposed to be lined up and spaced so that a man fixing a jammed rifle can be protected by his neighbors. The rifles were set up on a curve. Zulus stood up and got shot at until a Brits were surrounded by smoke from their rifles. The Brits regularly took a few steps forward to get ahead of the smoke. Because of the curved lines, the perimeter increased to the point where a soldier with a jammed riffle was not sufficiently protected. A Zulu could sprint in and spear a Brit before getting shot. This left two riflemen sufficiently isolated to be targets when their rifles jammed.
Battle ground states are either purple or red, so Trump has partial home ground advantage. His staff and volunteers are more outnumbered than Siilasvuo. Trump has demonstrated extreme self destructive reactions to diversions instead of following even his own loser strategy while Hillary has run perfect defense with plenty of reconnaissance. There are some Trump supporters with suicidal bravery, but they are not deployed to advantage. Clearly Trump lacks the preconditions to win a spears vs rifles battle.
Posted by: Isceald Glede | November 05, 2016 at 05:53 AM
Here's something a bit lighter, about a Republican father's advice to his son on which girl to marry. I know the chap who wrote this, he is a fantastic song writer, and will happily take orders for songs. A different sort of business model!
Jenny be fair, and Jenny be fine, and wants me for to wed,
And I would marry Jenny, but my father up and said,
"I hate to tell you something, son, you maybe never knew,
But Jenny's voted Democrat since Nineteen-Eighty-Two."
Well, Julie be fair, and Julie be fine, and wants me for to wed,
And I would marry Julie, but my father up and said,
"Now listen, boy, a girl's a toy for cold and lonely nights,
And Julie's worked the last decade for womens' equal rights."
Well, Mary is fair, and Mary is fine, and wants to marry me,
But Father said, "You're out of your head, she's not the girl for thee,
She works in an abortion clinic, lives with pain and strife,
And might get blown to smithereens one night by Right to Life."
Well, Rachel is cute, and thinks of me as husband-on-the-hoof,
But when my father heard of it, he up and hit the roof:
"How can you think to marry her? My God, the girl's a Jew!"
I didn't mention Stephanie, who's pagan through and through.
Fine! Gail is cute, and Gail is tough, and wants to be my pal.
But Dad said, "Marry her if you must, but don't befriend a gal!"
I tried to tell him Gail does not want to marry me,
But Gail told him better than I -- best two falls out of three.
Well, every time a woman seems to be the one for me,
My father blows it all to Hell with his philosophy,
But I prefer my lady friends, and they have much more class,
So I'll have an affair with whomever I care, and Dad can kiss my ass.
http://www.tomsmithonline.com/lyrics/curmudgeon.htm
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 06:03 AM
Latino Early Vote Surges From Florida to Nevada
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/latino-early-vot-surges-from-florida-to-nevada
Quote from the article:
"Latino early voting is up 100 percent in Florida, 60 percent in North Carolina and up 25 percent in Colorado and Nevada."
Clinton is getting 79% vs. 18 for Trump (while Romney got 27% vs. 71% for Obama).
And now check this table:
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/11/hispanic-2012-11-07-latino-vote-00-01.png
This means that the Hispanic vote is going to make triple history. Not only this is the largest Latino turnout, but this is the lowest number for any presidential candidate in recent history and the highest deficit in recent history. The previous records belonged to Bob Dole at 21% Latino votes and he also hold the record for the highest deficit at 51%. To say that Trump will get bob-doled is a yuge understatement.
I think Florida is definitely going Clinton's way. And without Florida Trump is done.
Posted by: cornelius | November 05, 2016 at 06:11 AM
Win or Lose, Trump Has Destroyed the Conservative Movement and Revealed Its Racist Base
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/never-trump-republicans-come-crawling-back
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:16 AM
Tomi says the Republicans have to grow up. I'm of the opinion that they are structurally unable to, and this is one of the reasons.
Why the Right-Wing Media's Vise Grip on the GOP Is Only Going to Get Tighter
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-right-wing-medias-vise-grip-gop-only-going-get-tighter
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:18 AM
And here is another reason the Republicans can't grow up.
Dave Daubenmire: Hillary Clinton Smells Like Rotten Meat Because She Is Demon-Possessed
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/dave-daubenmire-hillary-clinton-smells-like-rotten-meat-because-she-is-demon-possessed/
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:19 AM
And another reason the Republicans can't grow up.
Oath Keepers Prepare For Post-Election False Flags, Black Lives Matter IED Attacks
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/oath-keepers-prepare-for-post-election-false-flags-black-lives-matter-ied-attacks/
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:21 AM
And a fourth reason.
Anti-Choice Movement Placing Its Hopes In 2016 Election
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/anti-choice-movement-placing-its-hopes-in-2016-election/
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:23 AM
The Republicans have problems, the biggest of which is the Demographic Time Bomb.
But they also have a huge issue in that parts of their current coalition will resist change to the death. I have no figures on exactly what percentage of each of the above is part of that coalition, but we already know from data posted here by Tomi and others that the Republicans have a built in limit, a steel roof, which like Trump they cannot rise above.
I am dead tired, and can't remember the exact numbers, but let's say that:
Democrats - 35%
Republicans - 30%
Independents - 25%
The groups mentioned above each make up a small but significant portion. Assume:
Republicans minus Racists - 30-1=29%
Republicans minus Religious Right - 29-1=28%
Republicans minus Oath Keepers - 28-1=27%
Republicans minus Fox News Viewers - 27-1=26%
As I said, I have no idea the exact numbers, and there is overlap between the groups, but that covers the basics. I personally feel that the Religious Right may make up 1/2 of the Republican Party, which could make sanity on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion impossible.
Posted by: Wayne Borean | November 05, 2016 at 07:47 AM
It Sure Looks Like FBI Renegades Are Trying To Swing The Presidential Election
One of the most unsettling developments yet in a campaign filled with them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-election_us_581d07c8e4b0e80b02ca27a7
Posted by: Winter | November 05, 2016 at 10:15 AM