Yes, what the Dems need right now is to widen internal divisions. That will certainly help get rid of Trump.
Cambridge Analytica is about to get some more news coverage, thanks to someone who is dumping a bunch of internal documents from a whistleblower into a Twitter account.
Here’s the second one I looked at. It was in the “BOLTON” group, which sounded interesting because John Bolton is back in the news today and I wondered if this was the same Bolton. It is! So this is a case study about how they identified and targeted voters (in NC, by coincidence) for a 2014 Senate race.
CASE STUDY: JOHN BOLTON
CA Political was contracted to carry out a personality-targeted digital advertising campaign with three interlocking goals: to persuade voters to elect Republican Senate candidates in Arkansas, North Carolina and New Hampshire; to elevate national security as an issue of importance and to increase public awareness of Ambassador Bolton’s Super PAC.
GOP candidates were victorious in Arkansas and North Carolina and the Republican candidate did better than expected in New Hampshire. The strongest results came out of North Carolina, which was arguably the most competitive race of the mid-term elections. By adopting an entirely different approach from other campaign groups, the Bolton Super PAC campaign was able to cut through the noise and deliver messages that had a real impact in sending Thom Tillis to the United States Senate.
North Carolina Group 3: Psychographic profiling findings showed that this mostly female, younger group were highly neurotic and most concerned with the economy, national security and immigration. Advertising for Group 3 placed emphasis on the failures of the current administration’s national security policy. Post-election surveys revealed a statistically significant increase in the number of people who identified ‘National Security’ as their most important issue, a 34% increase versus the control group.
North Carolina Group 4: Psychographic profiling results indicated that this group was highly agreeable and conscientious, fairly evenly split in gender. Top concerns were the economy and education. Advertising for Group 4 downplayed political conflict with the message that “national security is something that should cut across political lines”. The campaign also featured young children to position the issue of national security as being for the good of family and society.
The 2014 mid-term elections.
In North Carolina, one of the most strongly contested swing states in the election, CA Political segmented persuadable and low-turnout voter populations to identify several key groups that could be influenced by Bolton Super PAC messaging. Online and Direct TV ads were designed to appeal directly to specific groups’ personality traits, priority issues and demographics.
My current favorite argument about why the impeachment is wrong is: it can’t be valid because it’s not supported by Republicans. If the Dems could convince the Republicans that Trump is a crook, they’d be more than happy to impeach him.
We’re talking about the Republicans who looked at 2016 Trump (the serial bankruptor, runner of a fraudulent ‘university’, mail order vitamin hustler, tax cheat, out and proud proponent of sexual assault, serial husband, porn-star-boffing hush-money-payer, guy with fake Time Magazine covers of himself in his office, mocker of veterans and the disabled, the racist, sexist, amoral, immoral delusional fabulist) and said “YEAH THAT’S THE STUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
The Dems are supposed to convince them that bribery is wrong?
Impeachment is wrong because a bunch of people who have no principle deeper than “Well, at least he’s not a liberal! LOL!” won’t change their mind?
Yeah. No. The problem here isn’t with the case against Trump.
The reason Trump and his defenders aren’t mounting any kind of serious defense to the impeachment accustaions is even simpler than “There isn’t one”. It’s the simplest reason of all:
He doesn’t need one.
The Senate outcome is preordained: they’re going to vote to acquit. Trump knows he doesn’t need to defend himself, at all. Instead, they’re using the media attention to stage another episode of Republican Grievance Theater for the rubes.
Hand-wringing over the incompetence of the defenses misses the point. The defenses don’t need to be legally competent; they only need to keep the GOP base happy.
But something that struck me a little harder than usual was that Biden was almost the only one on the stage who talked like a normal person. There was a point near the end of the debate when he was talking about getting men involved in stopping domestic violence and he said that we need to keep “punching” at it. My heart sank immediately. I knew that everyone would smirk at that. I knew that the twitterati and the analysts would tut tut. Ol’ Joe is just out of touch! He doesn’t know you can’t use words like that.
Meanwhile, every non-political junkie watching the debate thought there was nothing wrong with this. Biden was just using ordinary language, not worrying too much if it was fully approved by the woke brigade.
We sophisticates might roll our eyes at that, but I’ll bet most people don’t. That’s exactly what they want to hear, and Biden is the only one giving it to them. His final minute was basically a bid to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan, and I suspect it worked.
As always, I’ll add a caveat: I’m trying to guess about how other people reacted to things, and maybe I’m wrong. But for those who continue to be confused about how Biden retains his poll standing, this is probably it. Most people don’t care very much if he sometimes offends the tone police. They know perfectly well what he meant, and they’re OK with that.
For another example of ‘ordinary’ people hearing what is said and not what is spoken, see Donald Trump.
I’m not really opposed to Biden. I just cringe a bit when I picture myself spending years trying to figure out what he meant to say vs what he actually said. I’d rather have someone who’s a bit sharper with the language.
I think the Trump defenders’ best angle is to try to get the Burisma and the “server” fully blended into the overall anti-corruption effort that all the diplomats and NSC people kept talking about. That way, the GOP can argue that the Dems’ focus on these two things is misplaced and that they’re missing the forest for a couple of interesting trees. They can say Trump wasn’t going after those things specifically, he was just using them as examples of things that needed to be fixed.
“He was trying to fight corruption in Ukraine, just like those nice witnesses said the US should! You don’t want him to do that?”
It’s not even close to true, but it would make it look like Trump was simply a little sloppy in the examples he chose to use as shorthand for the overall effort.
(Clearly I am not a lawyer)
We’ve had five Presidents win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (four of them Republicans).
And we’ve had two Presidents be impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (Nixon when he figured out that it was going to happen).
But it’s looking like Trump will earn the distinction of being the first President to lose the popular vote and be impeached!
Always exceeding expectations.