Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (221078)	12/27/2021 12:57:08 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 362984

This becomes a problem because of the plethora of different measurements that can be made. You can look at the county level, sure, but that isn't what matters. You can also look at cities and states. What Zuckerberg did was to use simple statistical techniques to isolate pockets of votes. If you saw the Cambridge Analytica story, you saw the same process. The difference is that Trump wasn't injecting cash into the election facilities. He was simply campaigning in the most cost effective areas. What Z did was to take it to a new level (after all, they didn't have a candidate capable of campaigning, and in fact, he had effectively been banned from campaigning by the DNC and news media, so he didn't get asked any questions). So, the entire campaign was run on the basis of Zuckerberg getting the "right" people to the polls with cash. My expectation is that in the states where it can be outlawed (10 so far, IIRC) it will be. In the others, Republicans will be forced to fight fire with fire, and there will be a new race to the bottom: The guy with the most cash to buy votes will win a given location. If it is what you want it is what you shall have.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (221078)	12/27/2021 1:14:19 PM
From: Sam	4 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Brumar89 combjelly Wharf Rat Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362984

From the Washington Examiner: “While Mark and Priscilla provided a portion of the overall grant funding to CTCL, they did not determine which jurisdictions received funds nor did they determine how much each jurisdiction received,” explained LaBolt, who cut his teeth in politics as a Democratic campaign operative, including for former President Barack Obama. Still, the apparent myth that developed around CTCL and Zuckerberg and Chan’s involvement with the group was bothersome enough that the couple retained [prominent Republican election lawyer] Toner to review the grants awarded in 2020 and sought additional help from Brian Baker, a top Republican strategist in Washington. washingtonexaminer.com I would emphasize this because it is unlikely that Bozo would read all the way to the bottom of the article.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (221078)	4/21/2022 11:32:13 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 362984

>> Zuckerberg-funded elections group awarded more grants to GOP counties That isn't a valid metric. Not all counties are the same: I think you're a little bit analytical, so this should not require much explanation. The expenditures in Georgia alone were $45 Million -- essentially 1/10th of the bundle in this tiny state. Why? Demographics. Georgia could be flipped. Stacey Abrams had been working it hard, the black voters were excited about her, and it is a critical swing state. Big investment. Georgia's population is 11 million. It is significant enough a disparity that 14 states have now banned such funding. Surprise! All Red states. The bans were were passed but vetoed in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Someone thinks it is corrupt. And they're doing the right thing. Not too many have any blue on them. And not too many that are swing states... Truth is truth. You guys corrupted the election process last time, and you have every intention of doing it again this time. Hopefully, after the mid-terms, some of these states that refused to ban will get it done. At least the swing states.