MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 12 months 3 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
How much did Russia actually help Trump?
By HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:36am |URL:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/
- Add new comment
- 5800 reads
Comments
Nate Silver gets it about right I think. That's a little surprising since in his opinions, as opposed to data analyses, he generally hews to a pretty standard establishment media view. Here, though, he recognizes that the "Russia effect" is pretty impossible to determine and probably only served to reinforce already existing perceptions of Clinton in voters' minds.
Instead, Silver attributes her loss, first and foremost, to the Comey letter and the polls would certainly seem to bear out that position. He also notes her widespread unpopularity which is undeniable and which he fairly attributes at least somewhat to her own failings and mistakes. As Silver writes: "Would Clinton still have been “Crooked Hillary” even without the Russians? Almost certainly. But the Russians were at least adding fuel to the right fire — the one that wound up consuming Clinton’s campaign."
In fact, the Comey letter did so much harm because it reinforced in the public's mind what was always in the background. The collective understanding that Hillary is secretive, duplicitous, and unwilling to take responsibility for her bad actions.
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:46am
So Comey has no blame? What do you think would have happened if it was known that Trump’s campaign was being investigated for ties to Russia?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:15am
Nate Silver gets it about right I think. ...Silver attributes her loss, first and foremost, to the Comey letter. ...
In fact, the Comey letter did so much harm because ...
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:35am
Trump was under investigation at the same time. Voters did not know that fact. Trump benefited from the Comey letter because ............
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:39am
The majority of voters only one ethnic group bought into the Hillary nonsense. The Russian cyberwar May have played a role in decreasing the black vote, but black voters who turned out voted in the majority for Hillary. Why was that one ethnic group so gullible?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:25am
Silver makes some good observations but doesn't bet a six pack on anything. His last paragraph is key:
by moat on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 2:23pm
Well, perhaps there are other reasons Michigan was a surprise twice... that might change our suppositions.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 2:31pm
Good point. And that could point toward the use of disinformation to influence strategy as well as voting outcomes.
The indictment of the Russians allegedly establishes a baseline of cooperation that only considers "unwitting" cooperation with trump campaigners. Any revelation of a more active form of working together would make treating the Russian component as an independent factor a meaningless enterprise.
by moat on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:03pm
In the end, by 2020, doesn't it behoove to keep in mind that it is water over the damn to analyze this to death? Only because: demographics of the voters are rapidly changing. The whole rust belt swing voters of old are boomers that are dying and being replaced by millennials with different concerns. Throw in the major wild card of what Trump's initial appeal to his cohort will end up doing to what they think now that he goes back on his promises and they bought a pig in a poke, they come to grips with MAGA being an impossible dream.
Whatever happens with Trump, he is a huge catalyst of change.
I think the only big picture takeaway should be: micro-targeting is the future. But the traditional demographics involved are rapidly changing every day. Thank the catalyst of Trump and even the Russians for that. Even Fox et. al. are going to lose ability to affect as time goes on. Lots of micro tribes allover the place....Facebook for now, be there or be square, something else will eventually take it place.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:25pm
"water over the damn to analyze this to death" - Not if there was actual vote tampering. Remember, there was no audit done in these states, and whether they had "tamper-proof" voting methods, we know there were a lot of immoral people around who'd do anything for the cause.
I still contend Putin wasn't hanging out waiting for Fake News marketing to take its toll - a way too iffy game plan from a guy who seems to move on a lot of fronts.
And if worked once, could work again - since no one seems to be working very hard to prevent it or even know what happened.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 5:58pm
I agree, the vote tampering is different, it is meta, that if it happened, someone else could just as well do it next time. I can't believe that if it is proven we will end up with much of a partisan reaction except among the crazies. It will be devastating to the confidence in voting. Whereas nearly everyone on all sides thinks they are smart enough not to fall for "faux news", they are confident they really know wassup and won't fall for it. If their vote might not be registered properly, that would be a whole different thing.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 6:19pm
I suspect contributions fraud as well -
While not tracking <$200 donations seemed safe in say in pre-web 1990, once bots & digital payment systems became commonplace, with the ability to create and close down accounts on the fly, using SSN's of felons and dead people that will never be cross-checked or even archived seems perfect.
" Trump received about $239 million from donors who gave less than $200 in total. That amounts to 69 percent of the Trump campaign’s individual contributions". We're just starting to scrape ice off the iceberg.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 3:40am
Look, who believes Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida are still near 50/50 pro-Trump and anti-Trump? I know without looking at polls that he wouldn't have a chance winning those states today. What is the use of micro-analyzing what happened except this one thing: micro targeting is the future. But the old Trump memes used to win are done, over, kaput. So analyzing how those played won't help with the future.
That's not saying tomorrow, that if this self-described really smart guy comes up with a totally new shtick to sell tomorrow, it wouldn't sell, like: the greatest health care plan of all time, an actual one this time. But lock er up, or criminal immigrant hordes killing, old Trump, that's no longer gonna sell. Move on new issues.
One next big thing looks to me like: can we trust the FBI? That's volatile right now and going to continue to be so, Trump's stoking it, Russian trolls probably too. The Florida shooting just made it worse, anything Mueller's planning to do could make it worse or better. So you have to go to: what do the people of Pennsylvania think about the FBI? Not about what they think about Hillary or more factories coming to their state, doesn't apply anymore.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 5:12pm
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:51pm
Just FWIW, I checked Hillary's twitter feed
Note the subtitle of Lanis' book is: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency and she's recommending it.
That was Feb. 6. Everything after that up until the last on Feb. 17 is on Florida. No mention of the indictment at all; don't mean to imply she won't comment in the future.
by artappraiser on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 4:02am
Like with the Women's March - she knows when to stay outta sight.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 4:08am