Mediaboss Marketing

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Do you remember how you felt last October after you heard that FBI Director James Comey was reopening the FBIs investigation into Hillary Clintons possible illegal handling of classified communiqus while Secretary of State just 11 days before the presidential election?

That news, which left me with a sinking feeling that all but erased the confidence I had in Clintons prospects after the three presidential debates, was the moment that Donald Trump won the election, according to an analysis released this week by a data firm that tracks the psychological elements below patterns of consumer behavior, moods, and sentiment.

Many Americansand particularly those of us working in data-driven businesseswould like to see a credible, fact-based explanation for why the polls seemed to indicate a Clinton victory, but the election instead produced President Trump, wrote Brad Fay, an executive with Engagement Labs, in the Huffington Post. Fay notes that pollsters were not all wrong, as Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. But I do believe it was possible to show that the possibility of a Trump victory was rising more rapidly in the final week than opinion pollsand related prediction modelsshowed.

Fay said his firms behavior-tracking model found what many voters and analysts have suspected, that Comeys October surprise was the tipping point that turned voter sentiment away from Clintonbecause people inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt lost their enthusiasm, just as Comeys announcement buoyed Trump voters.

We are using a survey to measure behavior rather than opinion data, Fay explained. Although it is not our main line of business, every four years since 2008, we have added a few special questions to pick up the daily conversation about presidential candidates during the General Election campaign. Only after Election Day last year did we go back to see what the data showed, and it was startling. The first thing to know is that people were talking very negatively about both Trump and Clinton, in contrast to the mostly positive conversations we see for products and brands.

While both candidates were always firmly in negative territory, Clinton nevertheless enjoyed a persistent lead over Trump that opened up after the first debate, he said. Both candidates experienced significant drops in the immediate aftermath of the infamous audio recording of Billy Bush and Donald Trump [boasting of sexual assaults], although Clinton still had the advantage.

But then came Comeys unprecedented interference in the election, which registered on a much deeper level than the political polls were probing, Fay said.

Immediately afterward, there was a 17-point drop in net sentiment for Clinton, and an 11-point rise for Trump, enough for the two candidates to switch places in the rankings, with Clinton in more negative territory than Trump, he said. At a time when opinion polling showed perhaps a 2-point decline in the margin for Clinton, this conversation data suggests a 28-point change in the word of mouth standings. The change in word of mouth favorability metric was stunning, and much greater than the traditional opinion polling revealed.

Based on this finding, it is our conclusion that the Comey letter, 11 days before the election, was the precipitating event behind Clintons loss, despite the letter being effectively retracted less than a week later, Fay continued. In such a close election, there may have been dozens of factors whose absence would have reversed the outcome, such as the influence campaign of the Russian government as detailed by U.S. intelligence services. But the sudden change in the political conversation after the Comey letter suggests it was the single, most indispensable factor in the surprise election result.

His analysis noted that traditional polling does not take into account how people often react en masse: behavior predicts behavior, the invisible offline conversation matters, and humans are a herding species.

Its not that traditional political polls arent to be trusted, but rather that they expect people to act more rationally than is the case in reality; in other words, they put too much stock in believing what those polled say and too little stock in tracing what those polled may do.

Political consultants and commercial marketers alike have relied on a model that presumes voters and consumers act according to rational, individual choices that they can express and explain, Fay said. What we are learning is that emotion and peer influence play much bigger roles in influencing behavior than previously understood.

Fays takeaway is not just that the FBI directors interference single-handedly tipped the election away from Clinton and to Trump, but also that if you experienced that announcement as a gut-punch moment, you werent alone and your political instincts were correct.

Editors note: Mother Jones Kevin Drum wrote a more condensed report on this analysis on March 8.

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including Americas democracy and voting rights.

IMAGE:FBI Director James Comey testifies before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Oversight of the State Department in Washington U.S. July 7, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Visit link:
How James Comey's 'October Surprise' Doomed Hillary Clinton's Candidacy - The National Memo (blog)

A new study by the Wesleyan Media Project has found that the 2016 presidential campaign run by Hillary Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst-run political operationsin years.

Interestingly, the directors of the study disputethe argument that advertising doesnt matter in elections. Clintons failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, wasthe biggest reason for her defeat byDonald Trump.

The study also backs the view thatClintons focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her oppositioncontributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.

Published inThe Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the studyfoundthat one candidate in particular, Hillary Clinton, almost ignored discussions of policy. The study states the lack of advertising effectiveness may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.

Clinton, who was widely predicted to win by the mainstream media, sufferedunexpected losses in states where she failed to air ads until the final week before the polls. In contrast, Trump advertised in these states (Wisconsin and Michigan) forweeks before he won.

Click for more from Heat Street.

Read the original:
Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years - Fox News

Rethinking her loss in the presidential race as a mere setback after her long walks in the woods and lots of sleep, Hillary Clinton bravely stated recently that she was ready to get back up and keep going.

But whilespeaking ofgirl power in the U.S. in the 21st century last Tuesday, Clinton likely didnt suspect she was fighting a more powerful obstacle: acurse by the lady-shaman of Siberia, with whom she had the misfortune of crossing pathsabout 20 years ago.

Afuzzy photograph of Clinton by the mummy of the Princess of Ukok is one of the most revered exhibits atthe City Museum of Novosibirsk, in the capital of Siberia.

Will heracquaintance with the Princess bestowacurse on Hillary tonight? askedone headlineonelection day. (The Princess did not like Clintonand Clinton lost! avictorious readerremarked the next day, in the comments section beneaththe article.)

The remains of the immaculately dressed 20-something princess, preserved for several millennia in the Siberian permafrosta natural freezerwere discovered in 1993 by Novosibirsk scientist Natalia Polosmak during an archaeological expedition, The Siberian Timesreported in 2012. Six saddled and bridled horses, her spiritual escort to the next world, were buried around hera symbol of her evident status as a healer or a holy woman.

Ameal of sheep and horse meat was placed by her side, as well as ornaments of felt, wood, bronze and goldand a small container ofcannabis.

This discovery,in the middle of theUkok Plateauthe holiest place of the native people of the Altai Mountains, direct relatives of Native Americanshas beencalled one of the most important archaeological momentsof the modern era.

Even today, only a chopper can deliver one to this unreachableplace.

Both of the ancient girls armsfrom shoulders to wristswere covered with exquisite, modern tattoos. It is a phenomenal level of tattoo art. Incredible, Dr. Polosmak, who found the mummy, said. The tattoos on the left shoulder of the princess show a fantastical mythological animal: a deer with a griffons beak and a Capricorns antlers.

Her head was completely shaven and she wore a horse hair wig. She died over 2,500 years ago.

She was called Princess by the media. We just call her Devochka, meaning Girl,' explainedIrina Salnikova, head of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography.

Herbrain andinternal organs had been removed, so it was not possible to determine the cause of death. The Princess of Ukok was not related to any of the Asian races, scientists areconvincednor was sherelated to the present day inhabitants of Altai. She had a European appearance and blond hair before shaving her head.

Local shamans declared that the mummy belonged to the Altai Princess Ochi-Bala or White Lady of Ak-Kadynthe progenitor of the Altai people, the keeper of peace, who stood guard, preventing evil from penetrating our world.

Leave her in peace, rebury her inthe same spot, or there would be dire consequencesher ire and curse, for anybody who would cross her paththe shamans warned.

From day one, many Altai locals were alarmed by the removal of the ancient girls remains from thesacred burial moundsknown as kurgansregardless of the value to science of the discovery.In a land where the sway of shamans still holds, they believed that the princess removal would immediately lead to consequences.

Locals insisted the excavation disrupted her protective mission and the revenge she would inflict would reachglobally.

Archaeologists confirmed that as soon as the mummy was found, there wasthundereven there wasnt a cloud in the sky above. When the remains were removed, anearthquake began.

Some say the curse of the mummy caused the crash of a chopper carrying her remains out of Altai. Then, in Novosibirsk, her bodypreserved so well for so longsuddenly beganto decompose. The mummy had been stored in a freezer used to preserve cheese and fungi began growing on the flesh, it was claimed.

The princess remains had to be taken to Moscow and to be treated by the same scientists whotook such great care of the body of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet state.

After the body was brought to Novosibirsk (some 400 miles from the burial site), the constitutional crisis of 1993 began in Moscow. Ordered byRussian President Yeltsin, Russian tanks shelled Russian Parliament.

Soon after, economic disaster followed.

Even the war in Chechnya that began in 1995 was blamed on the Princess of Ukok.

Back in Altai, many ills had been explained by the princesss removal: forest fires, high winds, illness, suicides and an upsurge in earthquakes in the region,The Siberian Timesreported.

In November 1997, first lady Hillary Clinton visited Russia during her solo Human Rights Tour. One of her stops was in thecity of Novosibirsk.

On November 16, while on her trip, Clintonwas lured into the most dangerous trap: to meet face-to-face with the scientific sensation, the Princess of Ukok.

At the History and Archeology Institute of Novosibirsk Akademgorodok, in the company of archeologists Vyacheslav Molodin and Natalia Polosmak, the first lady observed the remains of the Princesson exhibit just for Clinton herself.

Was it a trap deliberately set by the Russian Secret Service?

Clinton was greeted by the local governor, sharedvodka and tea with him, and then paid a visit to atraditional Siberian familythe Vdovins. Father Vdovin was an engineer and mother Vdovin was anEnglish teacher at the local school, NGS Newsreported.

Clintons life, as well as the lives of those she met whilethere, dramatically changed soon after.

The governor lost his post two years later and died, while the Vdovin family split and moved to Canada.

In January, 1998, exactly two month after Clintons visit to the mummy of the Siberian Princess of Ukok, the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and the course of U.S. history was changed forever.

And, most importantly, Hillary Clintons goals became ever more elusiveno matter how hard she workedto reach them.

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton Was Cursed to Fail by Siberian Mummy - Observer

Story highlights

"If Hillary had won, I was ready to go home," Pelosi said after her interview at The Monitor Breakfast, hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, in Washington. "It was really shocking that someone like Donald Trump would be President of the United States. We yearn for the day of a Mitt Romney or a George Bush or someone. But anyway, that motivated me to stay now."

Pelosi, who has led the House Democrats since 2003, said she was staying to protect the Affordable Care Act -- a signature item dubbed "Obamacare" but one she was heavily decisive in crafting eight years ago as then-House speaker.

Pelosi faced a surprisingly tough re-election battle to head House Democrats in November, just weeks after Trump won the White House. As the party did some soul-searching, a group led by Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat, said it wanted a new direction.

Pelosi would not say Friday whether she would seek to run the House Democrats again in 2018, saying she takes everything now "day to day."

Read the rest here:
Nancy Pelosi says she would have retired if Hillary Clinton won - CNN

"I'd win." That's how Hillary Clinton responded when asked at Wellesley College what she would do differently in her failed run for the presidency in 2016. She's deceiving herself.

The Clinton candidacy suffered from many things, but nothing more so than a self-imposed feeling of invulnerability and inevitability. Just do a random search on YouTube if you don't believe it and watch how all the soi-disant experts yammered on and on about how Hillary couldn't lose, Trump was already finished, the election was over.

And her appearances at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia last summer, which IBD attended, seemed more like coronation events than an actual election battle.

Of course, we know how that turned out. But now, inher talk at Wellesley, Hillary suggested not only that she would win if the election were rerun, a bit of wishful revisionism, but that her actual defeat might have been because of her gender sexism.

"You know you're going to be subject to unfair and besides-the-point criticism," she said about being the first woman nominated to be president by a major party, and broadly hinting that this is what brought her down.

But, as investigative reporter Amber Athey at the Campus Reform website reported, two New York University professors tried to show just how bad the bias against Hillary was. They created an experiment to "reveal bias by re-enacting the presidential debates with the candidates' genders reversed."

It was an intriguing and creative idea. What the two impeccably progressive professors expected to find, of course, was that if Hillary were a man, she would be embraced and loved; and that Trump, as a woman candidate, would be despised. Gender bias, proved.

Boy, were they surprised.

"The two NYU professors who designed the experiment were 'unsettled' to discover that audience members actually found Trump's style more endearing when it came from a woman," Athey wrote of the NYU "Her Opponent" project. "One female audience member even remarked that she found the male version of Clinton 'very punchable' because he smiled so much."

Ouch! So much for the postelection notion of Hillary as a feminist victim of all those angry white men in the Midwest. What Democrats, and the Clinton camp, have trouble recognizing is she was simply an unpopular candidate with an unpopular message, beaten by an unpopular candidate with a more widely popular message.

Lest you think this is making too much of just one little experiment, a new poll out by Suffolk University shows that Clinton has left a bad taste in the mouth of much of America.

In July 2016, 53% of those polled held favorable views of Hillary Clinton, while just 42% rated her as "unfavorable." But in the poll's most recent sounding taken this month, Hillary Clinton's unfavorability rating had soared to 55%, while her favorability had plunged to 35%. Her favorability fell sharply among both Democrats and independents.

Yet another study, this one from the Wesleyan Media Project, found that Hillary Clinton's campaign was, in the words of Heat Street, "without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years."

The study itself didn't mince words, calling her campaign "devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential elections."

The truth is, as the saying goes, Hillary's support last year was a mile wide and an inch deep. Nor did she lose because she was a woman; that's a cop out, a cheap bit of undeserved victimhood that no doubt makes her feel better about losing to the big bully Trump.

No, in the end, she lost because voters across America found her profoundly unsympathetic and out of touch. Her proposed policies doubling down on ObamaCare, increasing Dodd-Frank financial regulation, higher taxes, more federal spending, attacks on coal country workers and industry through strict climate-change rules, not to mention nonstop gender, class, culture and race warfare reeked of a continuation of the failed Obama years.

Oh yes, and did we mention the lies then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made about her illegal home-brew email server and about what happened at Benghazi, where four Americans were killed? Those didn't help a bit in Middle America.

Contrary to what Hillary Clinton might believe, sexism had nothing to do with it or at least, very little. Hubris and an overweening sense of entitlement did. Voters were tired after eight years of Obamaism, and didn't want a reprise. They wanted deep changes to Washington, D.C., and its corrupt, cozy culture.

In short, they went looking for a wrecking ball that would knock the whole corrupt mess down. And they got him. His name is Trump.

RELATED:

Why Hillary Clinton Lost: An Election Post-Mortem

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead, But Not The Case Against Hillary

Clinton Scandals: Let The Investigations Continue

Lookout, Hillary! On The Economy, It's Advantage Trump

Read the original:
Sorry, But Hillary Clinton Didn't Lose Because She Is A Woman - Investor's Business Daily