• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Winging it at Twitter
    Propertius on Winging it at Twitter
    Beata on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    riverdaughter on Winging it at Twitter
    Propertius on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    riverdaughter on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Isabel on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
    Seagrl on Happy Birthday to Me, Bit…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

How Cambridge Analytica manipulated the Trump voter.

Once upon a time in a career a long time ago, a computational chemist with an interest in informatics took a short course in data analysis from a company in NJ that had developed an application that made it easy to take a bunch of descriptors, a desired outcome and make predictions. The chemist had an interest in politics and an imagination that tended to act like a kid on chocolate frosted sugar bombs running around with a pair of scissors.

“This thing is really cool. But can it be used in elections? You know, to figure out how people will vote? And if you could do that, could you do some design of experiments to make people vote for one candidate over another?”, she asked, just musing aloud while her inner kid’s shoe laces untied themselves as the kid was picking up speed and careening around corners.

The data scientist looked at her horrified. “No, I don’t think it could be done.”, he said in his lilting Swedish accent. “Why would anyone want to do that??”

The chemist saw that he avoided her for the rest of the week. So she put the brakes on the inner kid and tried to concentrate.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Until Cambridge Analytica unleashed its own inner kid:

I’m sure they didn’t stop with manipulating users on Facebook. Once they had a personality profile, they probably figured, what the heck, let’s see how well it works on Fox News viewers. They seem like the fearful, closed, neurotic types.

(I’d just like to point out that Cambridge Analytica used psychometricians who were experts on personalities. So, if you didn’t think the person who voted for Trump would ever vote for Trump, maybe you don’t know that person as well as you thought. The internal wiring for that vote has been there all along.)

But wait! There’s more.

Remember the Steele Dossier? Christopher Steele was hired by a conservative group to do opposition research on Trump in Russia. Then after the primaries, the Clinton campaign paid to fund the same research. Steele was so disturbed by what he found, he contacted the FBI. And what did he find? He thought that the Russians had potentially blackmailable material on Trump.

Turns out that the FBI was already on the case.

And who might have set those politicians up for extortion? If you said, Cambridge Analytica, you are correct. This is how they do it:

And the rest is history.

This is going to be an interesting week. Mueller is getting closer to Trump, the BBC Channel 4 is opening the kimono on Cambridge Analytica, and the whole thing will climax on Sunday with the Stormy Daniels interview, pun intended.

MoveOn just texted me. Protests may be imminent. Text “ALERT” to 668366 to get notified.

Pass it on…



19 Responses

  1. How much did Hillary spend on data analytics?

    • I don’t know. It’s a good question. But I saw no evidence that they used any like the Trump campaign did. They didn’t use the Steele Dossier either, even though they paid for it.
      That’s not how the Clintons operate. They’re not fear mongering types. I wouldn’t be surprised if they used traditional marketing methods though.
      Clinton pretty much told us what was going on with Trump and the Russians. But she was open about it. She was genuinely concerned about how psychologically unfit Trump was for office. People didn’t believe her. But she couldn’t have gone negative to the same extreme that Trump did. That would have provoked a backlash.
      AND Facebook says that the Clinton campaign did not use their ads in the same way that the Trump campaign did. That’s why she was charged more for ads than he was. A LOT more. His ads were designed to provoke emotions and clicks. The more clicks, the less his campaign paid.
      You can look it up.

      • Yeah, Hillary was not going to lie, spread fake stories and so on using FB or other vehicles about her opponent. There was enough wrong with trump in plain sight, we didn’t need any lies or fake stories. I do remember reading an article about her data operations which was traditional and extensive. But her opponent ‘hired’ CA and Russia to do dirty. It is interesting in the Ch 4 expose, they reveal sex workers and blackmailing politicians as a strategy. Is that what trump has on all the Republican critters like, Ryan, McConnell, and others who have fallen in line behind him? Remember the Russian sex worker in a Thai prison saying she has info.

        • Everybody knows that hookers never lie.

          • Everybody outside your cult knows that Cheeto Benito always lies, as does his master Tsar Vlad. 😛

          • I will take a Stormy Daniels with a conscience more seriously over a lying politician like trump.

          • Welp, you can’t tarnish her reputation. She’s done just about everything. I did my research.
            She’s got nothing to hide. Literally.
            And she supposedly has dick pics. Does she also have a blue dress? Hard to say but I wouldn’t be surprised.

          • Niles, your life will be so much easier if you just accept the possibility that what the evidence shows about Trump is true. It will relieve you of all the Rube Goldberg theories you have going on in your head. And let’s face it, nobody wants Vladimir Putin to run OUR country. Not even you. Trump has nothing of value to offer the country except chaos and deterioration. And he’s dangerous. You know all of this.

            Give yourself a chance.

  2. Maybe Democrats should hire CA to dig dirt on every congressional Republican district and senator (as absurd as it sounds). They won’t have to look hard for offensive material such as involvement with sex workers and corruption. Just clean the house/senate by any means, right? Why won’t they?

    • I ended the comment with a rhetorical question laced with sarcasm. Why won’t they? Same reason Hillary would not and she didn’t even use the Steele Dossier. And note also that the trumpies employed CA and Russia and still could not come up with any legit stories about Hillary because there are none — they had to concoct really egregious (pizzagate?) stuff and other lies about Uranium One or the Clinton Foundation, to feed the dumb fuckers (and with the active participation of the media, of course).

  3. I’ll tell you what’s happening! The chickens are coming home to roost!

    No! NOT the chickens!

    It’s the EAGLES that are coming, you BASTARDS!

    –Retired Commissioner Gordon

  4. Even intelligent people, (maybe) non-tech people are just figuring out how the third party data mining via SM platforms thing works or even using your phone in the middle. Imagine the other recent things, Alexa and other widgets which eavesdrop on what is going on inside your house.

    • Check the replies on this tweet. Before Google, FB, and certainly twitter, this data mining thingy was called personalization and started with email marketing. My first experience with it was when I was looking for something on the Web related to a conference I was going to and the Web ‘Gods’ picked up that I was Indian (which was quite tangential and I was surprised) and started showing info on Indian restaurants in Salt Lake City because that is where I was headed. This was around 2007. I remember joking with my colleagues that it was getting to be too personal, and that I didn’t like ‘these people’ knowing things about me.

    • Our Niles is a busy little beaver lately.

      Desperation? 😈

    • That is old information. You’re using something from a year ago when we since have found out that Cambridge Analytica has been lying to the public and to parliament and congress the entire time? You may be a fool but none of us around here are.

  5. If you watch that expose from the BBC you will find that Cambridge Analytica is nothing short of evil. And it will scare you and creep you out.

  6. Re: Stormy. Where did she hide the microscope?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: