Embed Notice

@mekkaokereke This was pretty much the take in chaos monkeys, a book by a former ad exec at Facebook.

His take on the CA scandal it was that it was basically tea leaf reading. While there was certainly a risk that they could have hound some kind of fundamental breakthrough in shaping people's voting patterns through micro targeting based on social network, there wasn't very much evidence at all to suggest it worked. But what it did indicate is that the campaign was willing to spend money on everything--- They were trying tea leaf reading because they had already spent all the money they planned to on standard channel marketing, while the Clinton campaign thought that he was so obviously beatable that it wasn't worth the money to spend on counter advertising and grassroots campaigning in "fortress" states. The party instead moved a lot of the money from the presidential race to the down ticket races.

CA was a warning, not a cause of victory.