I feel like this convo is sort of missing the point on both sides. First, I agree that I’m very skeptical we can infer much by Trump camp’s late campaign shifts. But, the key here to me isn’t the quality of the data. Getting the analytics means you have the other teams ...
2/ and models. It’s like if you’re playing football and you get the other teams playbook and their call signs. It doesn’t really matter if the plays are terrible. Knowing the other teams plans is huge.
3/ We’re all flying a little blind here. “Analytics” includes a lot of different stuff. But the assumption here seems to be that if the DNC’s data was so good they wouldn’t have been caught flat footed and Trump wouldn’t have won. In other words, the fact that Clinton lost ...
4/ and was caught off guard in the industrial Midwest means their data was faulty and therefore wouldn’t have helped Trump even if the Russian stole it and gave it to them. I don’t think that logic follows.
5/ Again, I don’t read much into the late media switches. But we don’t know what went into CA’s black box or the Trump operation’s. And analytics means much more than raw data.
