Biden for PREZ?!?!?!

[Cow Poke]

Misrepresenting my argument only makes you look all the more incapable of objective thought, CP. You obviously hear what you want to hear, and see what you want to see.

k

[rogue06]

You mean like with your witty "put the bong down." You prove you're that self unaware every day rogue, it's just that you're too self unaware to be aware of it. Perhaps you should pick up the bong and take a few tokes. It might wake you up a bit.

No. I'll leave the stoned posting to you.

[One Bad Pig]

No. I'll leave the stoned posting to you.

I'm impressed that he managed to get four sentences out without an obvious grammatical error, for once.

[Cow Poke]

Biden cranks up his 2020 machine

Maybe he's trying again!

FULLERTON, Calif. — By the time Joe Biden decided not to run for president in 2016, many Biden loyalists had become convinced that weak fundraising and his lack of infrastructure in early primary states would have doomed him if he ran.

What a difference now.

One month before the 2020 presidential primary begins in earnest, Biden continues to lead in early polls. He is ramping up his schedule of midterm campaign appearances and, perhaps more significantly, meeting with donors.

This week, before appearing at a rally here Thursday for several House candidates, the former vice president raised money for his American Possibilities PAC at two fundraisers in the Los Angeles area.

The host of the first event, film studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, was critical to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s fundraising success in the 2008 presidential primary. And while Katzenberg has met with many prospective 2020 candidates, Biden’s appearance in Beverly Hills served as a reminder of the connections he still can tap into.

“Don’t let anyone fool you: If he decides to run, you will see a national infrastructure come together,” said the hotel magnate George Tsunis, an Obama megadonor. “In the past when he’s run, there has been a formidable primary opponent … If he chooses to run in 2020, he would be the Obama-Clinton-like candidate. I think people would feel his time is now, and I think a lot of the country would feel that we need a Joe Biden as president.”

[Terraceth]

Biden cranks up his 2020 machine

Maybe he's trying again!

FULLERTON, Calif. — By the time Joe Biden decided not to run for president in 2016, many Biden loyalists had become convinced that weak fundraising and his lack of infrastructure in early primary states would have doomed him if he ran.

What a difference now.

One month before the 2020 presidential primary begins in earnest, Biden continues to lead in early polls. He is ramping up his schedule of midterm campaign appearances and, perhaps more significantly, meeting with donors.

This week, before appearing at a rally here Thursday for several House candidates, the former vice president raised money for his American Possibilities PAC at two fundraisers in the Los Angeles area.

The host of the first event, film studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, was critical to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s fundraising success in the 2008 presidential primary. And while Katzenberg has met with many prospective 2020 candidates, Biden’s appearance in Beverly Hills served as a reminder of the connections he still can tap into.

“Don’t let anyone fool you: If he decides to run, you will see a national infrastructure come together,” said the hotel magnate George Tsunis, an Obama megadonor. “In the past when he’s run, there has been a formidable primary opponent … If he chooses to run in 2020, he would be the Obama-Clinton-like candidate. I think people would feel his time is now, and I think a lot of the country would feel that we need a Joe Biden as president.”

"Obama-Clinton-like candidate"? I don't think they thought that phrase through. This is apparently supposed to refer to the obvious leading candidate in the primary, but Obama wasn't that candidate in 2008, Hillary Clinton was; Obama's victory was an upset, sort of like if Bernie Sanders had been successful in his run.

[Tassman]

Don't count out Hillary... She needs to set this great injustice right!

Nah! Putin would never permit it.

[rogue06]

Biden cranks up his 2020 machine

Maybe he's trying again!

FULLERTON, Calif. — By the time Joe Biden decided not to run for president in 2016, many Biden loyalists had become convinced that weak fundraising and his lack of infrastructure in early primary states would have doomed him if he ran.

What a difference now.

One month before the 2020 presidential primary begins in earnest, Biden continues to lead in early polls. He is ramping up his schedule of midterm campaign appearances and, perhaps more significantly, meeting with donors.

This week, before appearing at a rally here Thursday for several House candidates, the former vice president raised money for his American Possibilities PAC at two fundraisers in the Los Angeles area.

The host of the first event, film studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, was critical to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s fundraising success in the 2008 presidential primary. And while Katzenberg has met with many prospective 2020 candidates, Biden’s appearance in Beverly Hills served as a reminder of the connections he still can tap into.

“Don’t let anyone fool you: If he decides to run, you will see a national infrastructure come together,” said the hotel magnate George Tsunis, an Obama megadonor. “In the past when he’s run, there has been a formidable primary opponent … If he chooses to run in 2020, he would be the Obama-Clinton-like candidate. I think people would feel his time is now, and I think a lot of the country would feel that we need a Joe Biden as president.”

Biden's specialty is economic populism at a time the economy is doing great. Unless it sours his message of let me change it will not likely resonate. And in this post-Weinstein, #MeToo era, Joe "Handsy" Biden will have another significant hurdle to overcome.

[rogue06]

Nah! Putin would never permit it.

Are you saying he won't let the Russians help her cobble together a fabricated, fake dossier against her political opponents again?

[Tassman]

Are you saying he won't let the Russians help her cobble together a fabricated, fake dossier against her political opponents again?

I’m saying that Russian election sabotage helped Trump win and helped ensure that Hillary would lose...as the US Intel Agencies have unequivocally stated. There’s no reason to think the situation has changed.

[Charles]

I’m saying that Russian election sabotage helped Trump win and helped ensure that Hillary would lose...as the US Intel Agencies have unequivocally stated. There’s no reason to think the situation has changed.

You are right. But soon they will all ask you for the evidence since they don't trust their Intel Agencies.

[rogue06]

I’m saying that Russian election sabotage helped Trump win and helped ensure that Hillary would lose...as the US Intel Agencies have unequivocally stated. There’s no reason to think the situation has changed.

They said they tried to interfere -- much like they have done in every election since the start of the Cold War. They never said they "helped ensure that Hillary would lose." In fact folks like Rosenstein, no friend of Trump's by any measure, have said just the opposite -- they were ineffective^[1]. That is your own illegitimate spin that you seek to add. This has become your sleazy modus operandi just like when you tried to dishonestly slip "nice white countries" into a supposed quote by Trump.





1. To be more precise he said that not a single vote was changed nor was the election outcome affected by their attempted meddling.

Moreover, FBI director Christopher Wray declared at a conference held at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (a think tank that US News & World Report ranks as centrist) that "[The Russians] do not tamper in our infrastructure. They try to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system." And the left is doing just what they hoped for.

[Charles]

They said they tried to interfere -- much like they have done in every election since the start of the Cold War. They never said they "helped ensure that Hillary would lose." In fact folks like Rosenstein, no friend of Trump's by any measure, have said just the opposite -- they were ineffective^[1]. That is your own illegitimate spin that you seek to add. This has become your sleazy modus operandi just like when you tried to dishonestly slip "nice white countries" into a supposed quote by Trump.





1. To be more precise he said that not a single vote was changed nor was the election outcome affected by their attempted meddling.

Moreover, FBI director Christopher Wray declared at a conference held at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (a think tank that US News & World Report ranks as centrist) that "[The Russians] do not tamper in our infrastructure. They try to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system." And the left is doing just what they hoped for.

Here is an interesting part of an article in Wired Magazine:

So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked. Social media companies don't want us to know, and they obfuscate and drag their feet rather than disclosing information. The analytical tools to quantify the impact don’t readily exist. But we know what we see, and what we heard—and the narratives pushed by the Russian information operation made it to all of our ears and eyes.

In the indictment, Trump campaign officials are referred to as “unwitting” participants in Russian information warfare. This gives the White House an out—and a chance to finally act against what the Kremlin did. But the evidence presented in the indictment makes it increasingly hard to say Russian efforts to influence the American mind were a failure.

To say not a single vote was changed is completely absurd. What kind of evidence would you ever provide for that?



https://www.wired.com/story/did-russ...ow-undeniable/

[rogue06]

Here is an interesting part of an article in Wired Magazine:





To say not a single vote was changed is completely absurd. What kind of evidence would you ever provide for that?



https://www.wired.com/story/did-russ...ow-undeniable/

So now it is the left that is calling into question the Intelligence Community's assessments?

I've been hunting for the posts about just what sort of campaign the Russians ran and how very few people even saw it (with most of them being after the election) but haven't had any luck

ETA: Found them! I was using "twitter" in my search parameters rather than "facebook"

Yup. They spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the lion's share coming after the election.


I can imagine every campaign manager and advertising executive are dying to know how to do that.





In fact I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total. That's equivalent to something like 1 maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station.


For some perspective, back during the 2004 race then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct Inside Washington show on PBS that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president ("Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points." )

Actually they have a pretty darn good idea. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

And for just a bit more context, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

Further, as I noted in another thread

And according to the indictment the Russians spent "thousands" of dollars every month for advertising on social media. According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

So

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

Yet you want us to believe they tipped an election. Seriously?

I don't want you to "believe" anything. I'm just providing the facts.

The fact is that they can look at what sort of stuff was put out, when it was put out and when and if anyone clicked on it.

Here's something more for you to chew on.

On the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (the indictment that blew up in his face when they showed up and he started giving a list of excuses why he didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31810[/ATTACH]

Did you get that?

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.



The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.


The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

He later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times (which covered that part), his "unusually candid statement that flouted Facebook’s well-sculpted messaging strategy, which has generally been to stay as far away from partisan debates as possible"^[1] -- but not before a couple other Facebook executives, including Andrew Bosworth ("VP AR/VR at Facebook. VP of Ads before that. Co-Invented News Feed, Messenger, Groups, and more" and who has been called one of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted lieutenants), praised Goldman for what he did, tweeting it was an "Important thread here."








1. Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence. And who can forget how Facebook representatives told Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was "on our side" and then grumbled about Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing because it helped Trump.

[Mountain Man]

They said they tried to interfere -- much like they have done in every election since the start of the Cold War. They never said they "helped ensure that Hillary would lose." In fact folks like Rosenstein, no friend of Trump's by any measure, have said just the opposite -- they were ineffective^[1]. That is your own illegitimate spin that you seek to add. This has become your sleazy modus operandi just like when you tried to dishonestly slip "nice white countries" into a supposed quote by Trump.





1. To be more precise he said that not a single vote was changed nor was the election outcome affected by their attempted meddling.

Moreover, FBI director Christopher Wray declared at a conference held at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (a think tank that US News & World Report ranks as centrist) that "[The Russians] do not tamper in our infrastructure. They try to destabilize the integrity of our system by usually backing losers and getting the losers all upset claiming something went awry, and that promotes disharmony and distrust of the election system." And the left is doing just what they hoped for.

Not to mention that the Senate Intelligence Committee has said there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, or even evidence that Russia preferred one candidate over another.

[Mountain Man]

As for Biden, the Democrats are in desperate need of someone viable to run against Trump since it looks like their other hopefuls, namely Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, are self-destructing. Biden's primary advantage at the moment is that he's been out of the public eye, which always seems to improve a politician's favorability with the voters. Of course that advantage will immediately disappear if he starts campaigning.