3 ms·

> Network analysis and data mining will claim their first major political scalp. Who's scalp was it? I don't know any politician who has been taken to task ov

> Network analysis and data mining will claim their first major political scalp. Who's scalp was it? I don't know any politician who has been taken to task over network analysis and data mining. Fore sure not Obama, whose staffers have quietly chortled that they did far worse than Cambridge Analytica ever did. Definitely not Trump, his numbers are as even as they haev ever been. Maybe Zuckerberg? But he's still CEO of his company.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
I believe the "taking the scalp" could also be a reference for its intended offensive power, not just the scandal of using it. In that light, the answer is obvious: Hillary Clinton! (And before someone complaints, which someone will definitely still do: Given the extremely close election, it is possible, even likely, that any single one of maybe a dozen issues had the potential to change the outcome: Just being a bit better as a candidate would have been enough. That e-mail "scandal" getting the same attention as the dozens of carbon copies of it since revealed in the Trump Cabinet, i. e. none, would have sufficed. Defences against Russian interference, or even just widespread knowledge of the attacks, could have been enough etc. etc.
arrosenberg 7y ago
Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign claims their data operation is how they won in the Rust Belt.
- skinkestek 7y ago
  To me it seems obvious that Hillary Clinton was the one who pulled (or pushed) the victory in Trumps direction, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by some really interesting remarks about her core voters. (Disclaimer: Not an American, don't like Hillary Clinton and definitely not Donald Trump.)
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    I can see how one would get that impression based on our media, but it would be an oversimplification to say the least. The history of Hillary Clinton is too complex and long to get into for the purposes of this discussion. Suffice to say the Trump campaign made a concerted effort to use data to target ads at specific groups in the Rust Belt with the intention of de-legitimizing her as a Presidential candidate.
tiborsaas 7y ago
The EU? David Cameron?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

I believe the "taking the scalp" could also be a reference for its intended offensive power, not just the scandal of using it. In that light, the answer is obvious: Hillary Clinton! (And before someone complaints, which someone will definitely still do: Given the extremely close election, it is possible, even likely, that any single one of maybe a dozen issues had the potential to change the outcome: Just being a bit better as a candidate would have been enough. That e-mail "scandal" getting the same attention as the dozens of carbon copies of it since revealed in the Trump Cabinet, i. e. none, would have sufficed. Defences against Russian interference, or even just widespread knowledge of the attacks, could have been enough etc. etc.

arrosenberg 7y ago

Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign claims their data operation is how they won in the Rust Belt.

skinkestek 7y ago
To me it seems obvious that Hillary Clinton was the one who pulled (or pushed) the victory in Trumps direction, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by some really interesting remarks about her core voters. (Disclaimer: Not an American, don't like Hillary Clinton and definitely not Donald Trump.)
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  I can see how one would get that impression based on our media, but it would be an oversimplification to say the least. The history of Hillary Clinton is too complex and long to get into for the purposes of this discussion. Suffice to say the Trump campaign made a concerted effort to use data to target ads at specific groups in the Rust Belt with the intention of de-legitimizing her as a Presidential candidate.

tiborsaas 7y ago

The EU? David Cameron?