Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To answer my own question, she talks about this as an answer during the Q&A starting at 34:00. Since this was an answer to a question, it was not part of her prepared speech, and it's quite possible she revealed something she shouldn't have. The host of the conference was quite surprised to hear she had early access to write-in votes and actually had her verify this is what she was saying.
She addressed that, it's variable by state. They were able to take advantage of the early results as they came in. Watch the video starting at 34:00.
Thanks, that video should be required viewing for all voters. I now know if I request an early voting ballot, her cohorts can learn who requested and who returned their ballots.
Then they research that persons opinions on data they already have. Thus they know what candidate is ahead in the voting
There should be laws against early voting ballots being public information until the election is over. Any organization can send out request for obtain an early ballot from the county. Are these ballots returned to the county or to the organization?
Thanks, that video should be required viewing for all voters. I now know if I request an early voting ballot, her cohorts can learn who requested and who returned their ballots.
Then they research that persons opinions on data they already have. Thus they know what candidate is ahead in the voting
There should be laws against early voting ballots being public information until the election is over. Any organization can send out request for obtain an early ballot from the county. Are these ballots returned to the county or to the organization?
Here in AZ the request goes to the county. (I just mailed mine yesterday.)
Here in AZ the request goes to the county. (I just mailed mine yesterday.)
Thanks
Parties and candidates can send out the request for an early ballot. One sends the request to the county and the county sends out the early ballot. Perhaps the same in Az.
The part that has me stumped is who gives the information on returned completed ballots to Ms. Schweickert's cohorts?
Time was Harris county counted all the absentee ballots when the polls closed on election day. Is she talking just mail in ballots or all the machines scattered all over the county for weeks while early voting is ongoing?
I know the book one signs are available after the election. During? That a whole other deal. Every now and then, someone comes into the polling place wanting to see who has and who has not voted. The judge tells them no. Is that ongoing public information?
Cambridge may have known the number of absentee voters who were sent ballots. That's easy to discover.
They might have know how many ballots were returned, as that is fairly easy, too.
But it's doubtful they knew the outcome of the voting, as the ballots aren't ever counted until election day.
There may be some data program that parses voter percentages, I suppose, but data alone is never as certain, and Cambridge Analytica wasn't hired to just collect predictive data. All their efforts were directed toward influencing the voters, not in predicting the outcome.
If they were as successful as they hoped to be, they would have data that showed what was most effective for them, but it wouldn't be of any use to them to predict outcomes beforehand. They're in the business of changing minds, not election prediction. The only thing that would concern them was how well or how poorly their efforts worked.
That's the big difference.
The RNC invested millions in prediction software in 2012 that made no difference in the election outcome. The Democrats did the same in 2016. Both losing parties left the mind-changing up to the candidates, which only proved that all the money they spent was wasted.
After 2016, it became obvious that voters are more likely swayed by their friends and what they see on places like Facebook and Twitter than they are by what the candidates have to say, or the party platforms.
That's why Cambridge Analytica came into existence; by collecting social media data on the internet and using it on social media sites, they effectively changed enough voter's minds to swing the election to their candidate.
Cambridge may have known the number of absentee voters who were sent ballots. That's easy to discover.
They might have know how many ballots were returned, as that is fairly easy, too.
But it's doubtful they knew the outcome of the voting, as the ballots aren't ever counted until election day.
There may be some data program that parses voter percentages, I suppose, but data alone is never as certain, and Cambridge Analytica wasn't hired to just collect predictive data. All their efforts were directed toward influencing the voters, not in predicting the outcome.
If they were as successful as they hoped to be, they would have data that showed what was most effective for them, but it wouldn't be of any use to them to predict outcomes beforehand. They're in the business of changing minds, not election prediction. The only thing that would concern them was how well or how poorly their efforts worked.
That's the big difference.
The RNC invested millions in prediction software in 2012 that made no difference in the election outcome. The Democrats did the same in 2016. Both losing parties left the mind-changing up to the candidates, which only proved that all the money they spent was wasted.
After 2016, it became obvious that voters are more likely swayed by their friends and what they see on places like Facebook and Twitter than they are by what the candidates have to say, or the party platforms.
That's why Cambridge Analytica came into existence; by collecting social media data on the internet and using it on social media sites, they effectively changed enough voter's minds to swing the election to their candidate.
I rather doubt that they changed many minds, but instead motivated certain groups to vote, and other groups not to vote. After all, if you "knew" Hillary had it in the bag, what motivated you to go vote for her?
I rather doubt that they changed many minds, but instead motivated certain groups to vote, and other groups not to vote. After all, if you "knew" Hillary had it in the bag, what motivated you to go vote for her?
Last week I was discussing this past election with a friend who always votes green or anybody not and R or D. She thinks both major parties have ruined government and always have.
I was stunned when she remarked she was rethinking what she thought about crooked Hillary. She believes much of her opinion was formed by what she read on the internet that was not true.
Last week I was discussing this past election with a friend who always votes green or anybody not and R or D. She thinks both major parties have ruined government and always have.
I was stunned when she remarked she was rethinking what she thought about crooked Hillary. She believes much of her opinion was formed by what she read on the internet that was not true.
That's just one person, but???
And how did she learn that what she had read was not true? Most likely by what she has read on the internet since then, which may or not be true. Hillary ran the most negative campaign in modern history, yet she lost. Go figure.
I really think it was about small changes in voter turnout.
Cambridge may have known the number of absentee voters who were sent ballots. That's easy to discover.
They might have know how many ballots were returned, as that is fairly easy, too.
But it's doubtful they knew the outcome of the voting, as the ballots aren't ever counted until election day.
There may be some data program that parses voter percentages, I suppose, but data alone is never as certain, and Cambridge Analytica wasn't hired to just collect predictive data. All their efforts were directed toward influencing the voters, not in predicting the outcome.
If they were as successful as they hoped to be, they would have data that showed what was most effective for them, but it wouldn't be of any use to them to predict outcomes beforehand. They're in the business of changing minds, not election prediction. The only thing that would concern them was how well or how poorly their efforts worked.
That's the big difference.
Did you watch the video? They got the names and polling locations of the mail-in voters. By correlating them with their political profiles gleaned from Facebook, they were indeed able to predict the election outcome. That data was most likely bought and used by Trump campaign so that they knew where to focus their efforts in the last weeks of the election. A feedback loop if you will. It's almost inconceivable that this data wouldn't be used that way, even though she didn't state that.
My state has early voting up to and until the Friday evening before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, So do most other states.
She could have them if they were going to CREATE them...
Hacking doesn't just steal data---it can implant data...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
