Eric Schmidt's 2014 plan for Hillary's campaign via Wikileaks
wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org
"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."
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 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:
1. https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora...
2. https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_and...
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?
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
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.
"The Rules
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.)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363111
Interested if anyone can share their experiences?
> 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."
Jesus, those don't sound like campaign workers. They sound like cult members.
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.
But for a politician? At the national level? In 2016?
I think the gag reflex is more appropriate.