dagblog - Comments for "Inside Hillary's Post-Election Head"

Because it's bullshit. All

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 17:53:08 +0000

In reply to May did not say "I" or "the

Because it's bullshit. All around the world. "We'll do this, we'll do that." Parties run an agenda, not open brunch. My way or highway.

DNC data types hitting back

Obey — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:39:04 +0000

In reply to P.S. I noted with interest in

DNC data types hitting back now against her account of the situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/01/ex-dnc-aide-hits-back-hard-at-clinton-says-her-campaign-ignored-its-data-on-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/?utm_term=.a35a29fc63a2

May did not say "I" or "the

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:27:08 +0000

In reply to Obviously, political parties

May did not say "I" or "the government" or "my administration." She said, "The Conservative party is going to deliver for everyone across the whole country." Because she and every other sane person in the world recognize that the public expects political parties to serve the public.

Oy, this is such a stupid argument. Why can't you just admit the point, and we can all move on with our lives?

Thanks. This below connects a

Obey — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 08:21:37 +0000

In reply to More: know who SCL is

Thanks. This below connects a few dots for me that may have been obvious to others on the Russia-Trump collusion. I hadn't seen the obvious need for ongoing communication and collaboration before. But the point below about guiding the deployment of content seems important.

“[The report] concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign to influence voters in the election,” Clinton said. “They did it through paid advertising, we think. They did it through false news sites. They did it through these 1,000 agents. They did it through machine learning, which kept spewing out this stuff over and over again, the algorithms they developed.”

Then she asked, not-quite-rhetorically, “Who were they coordinating with or colluding with?”

Unlike previous Russian cyberattacks inside the U.S., “This was different. They went public,” she said. “The Russians, in my opinion—and based on the intel and counterintel people I’ve talked to—they could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided.”

“Guided by Americans?” Mossberg asked.

“Guided by Americans,” Clinton answered. “And guided by people who had polling data and information.”

After a brief tour of James Comey’s behavior during the election, Kara Swisher asked Clinton who she thought was guiding the Russians. “ I hope that we’ll get enough information to be able to answer that question,” Clinton responded at first.

Swisher prompted, “But you’re leaning Trump.”

“I am leaning Trump,” Clinton said.

More: know who SCL is

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 08:07:16 +0000

In reply to I haven't really followed

More: know who SCL is

Long & interesting backgrounder from Medium including Flynn's involvement representing SCL Group for defense contracts!!!! (yes, of course they landed one in March)

The Russian Connection, of course

CVille, I'm just seeing your

Obey — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:03:48 +0000

In reply to As an enthusiastic Hillary

CVille, I'm just seeing your response now. Thanks for this. It wasn't meant as a personal dig at Clinton. On the contrary, I couldn't imagine people going up looking for a hug from Kerry or Gore after their election losses. Nobody was personally invested in them as people rather than simply as the candidate most likely to win the election for the Dems. And this despite the fact that she shares Kerry's and Gore's weaknesses in not being a"natural politician" to use her own phrase.

And I'm not "incredulous" about anyone's admiration for her. I see it in the continuing resentment, as you put it, about her election loss. And it's a resentment that is different than the resentment directed at Nader voters after Gore's loss. It's a very personal one, not one of mere political calculation.

I haven't really followed

Obey — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 05:57:58 +0000

In reply to It's more than the Cambridge

I haven't really followed this thread of the story. What do you mean 'more than Cambridge Analytica'? Did Trump have other big data advantages?

May as PM is supposed to

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:36:41 +0000

In reply to Obviously, political parties

May as PM is supposed to serve the public, insincere as it is. May as party member can do as the party likes. Here's typical "serve" from Prager.

Worse, Debbie Wasserman

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:24:41 +0000

In reply to More Hillary today @ NYMag,

Worse, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was an anchor around Hillary's neck for 1 1/2 years, and people seemed to think *Hillary* appointed her, so every screwup not only hurt the DNC's limited effectiveness, it became grist for the anti-Hillary Hate cottage industry. (I seldom saw Obama and DWS in the same sentence - things dont stick to him the way they stick to her...)

It's more than the Cambridge

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 04:11:10 +0000

In reply to P.S. I noted with interest in

It's more than the Cambridge Analytica thing (plus look who owns Cambridge Analytica but a successful group devoted to rigging and theowing elections worldwide, but yes, the benefits to party of a billionaire's multiyear pet project?