"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them."
"The impact of press coverage should be measurable in
reach and impact, and TV effectiveness measured by attention and other
surveys."
"Build tools that measure the rate and spread of stories and rumors, and
model how it works and who has the biggest impact. Tools can tell us about the origin of stories and the impact of any venue, person or theme."
"For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote."
"It should be possible to link the voter records in Van with upcoming
databases from companies like Comcast and others for media measurement
purposes."
Because polling on phones these days must include mobile phones to be accurate, which is every expensive because computerized dialers are illegal for mobile numbers. To poll mobile phones, you must have humans manually dial each number.
Polling is a major expense for campaigns. Anything that gets that cost down is a strategic advantage. That said, online polling has a LONG way to go before it is as accurate and trusted as phone polls.
I am increasingly having an extremely hard time ignoring the reality that Wikileaks appears to be playing favorites here. Where is the dirt on the internal workings of the Republican party and Trump's campaign? It would bring some useful perspective to all of these supposedly damning leaks.
I was previously under the impression that Wikileaks's primary mission was to liberate information. However, Wikileaks appears to be only selectively interested in freedom of information and more interested in some arbitrary agenda.
It's important to remember that even facts can appear to mean very different things depending on the context in which they are presented. Whoever is presenting the facts can do a great deal to manipulate people's understanding of them by choosing to emphasize certain aspects and conveniently omitting others.
Update:
Here are some outsite views which reflect and/or support my arguments:
If they had the information, I'm sure they would release it - like they have in the past released information damaging to the Bush administration years ago.
Do you have evidence that they have information that they are suppressing?
I agree, I don't like Assange but I think it's whoever is giving him the leaks and not him who is biased. I just wonder who it is that is doing the leaking
Yeah, I looked at the "America" section of the news site and it's very anti-America and very anti-Clinton. Having a show on there is concerning and looking at the descriptions for the episodes for the shows it looks like Assange really doesn't like the US government at all.
EDIT: I still don't think he's releasing these because of bias but I think he's very happy with the effect of the leaks that he has gotten
I don't have evidence that they're sitting on information. But there are plenty of things they've done in recent months that make them sound almost alt-right -- at times seeming extremely obstinate or even belligerent. Here's a fairly well-written article that discusses some of them: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora...
The main criticism seems to be that they publish personal information.
When the Manning cables that exposed various corrupt and illegal actions of the Bush administration were released, the exact same criticisms were leveled at them.
I'm failing to see the difference between then and now.
Its important that all the player in the campaign work at cost and there be
no special interests in the financing structure. This means that all
vendors work at cost and there is a separate auditing function to ensure no
one is profiting unfairly from the campaign. All investments and conflicts
of interest would have to be publicly disclosed. The rules of the audit
should include caps on individual salaries and no investor profits from the
campaign function. (For example, this rule would apply to me.)"
> "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young
and hardworking and enthusiastic. Its important to have a very large
hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic,
smart and low paid permanent employees.
> The key is a large population of talented people who are dying to work for
you. Any outer borough of NYC, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston are all good
examples of a large, blue state city to base in.
> Employees will relocate to participate in the campaign, and will find low
cost temporary housing or live with campaign supporters on a donated basis.
This worked well in Chicago and can work elsewhere."
You've never been involved in any form of activism, I take it? It's no cult; people who want to work for a political campaign are activists like any other. They are devoted to a cause they believe in, and will happily make personal sacrifices to strengthen that cause.
The activist spirit is alive and well in campaign employees.
Maybe you've volunteered for a charity? Volunteerism is the other half of the equation. Campaign employees are part activist, part "paid volunteer". Anyone who's volunteered for their kids' school, for a neighborhood charity, or for some other cause knows the positive, almost euphoric feeling that comes from volunteering for something that is meaningful to you.
In a time where most of us go to sleep feeling existential dread because we can't do anything to stop the various runaway trains we see in our society/planet/etc, volunteering can provide a feeling that you're actually doing something to make a difference.
That spirit, too, is alive and well in campaign employees.
I've worked at a nonprofit. I've also volunteered to work at charities, schools and libraries. Yes, there is a sense of purpose and accomplishment that go along with all of these that make the work worthwhile because you feel that you're making a positive impact on the lives of people and your community.
But for a politician? At the national level? In 2016?
"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them."
"The impact of press coverage should be measurable in reach and impact, and TV effectiveness measured by attention and other surveys."
"Build tools that measure the rate and spread of stories and rumors, and model how it works and who has the biggest impact. Tools can tell us about the origin of stories and the impact of any venue, person or theme."
"For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote."
"It should be possible to link the voter records in Van with upcoming databases from companies like Comcast and others for media measurement purposes."