Trump won by a tiny margin in a few swing states - highly targeted strategic communication may well have helped. But the role of CA is probably being overblown a bit.
That said, this from Tett's piece in the FT
While Mr Nix says CA did not have enough time to roll out all its “psychographic” tricks, it used its data to identify which voters could be “flipped” to support Mr Trump, and which Clinton supporters could be persuaded to stay at home with personally targeted messages. They advised Mr Trump on which cities to visit and which messages to use.
Rings very true to me - there was some pretty classic voter suppression going on alongside the dogwhistling.
Everyone's on about Cambridge Analytica
https://www.ft.com/content/bee3298c-e304-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a
https://www.dasmagazin.ch/2016/12/03/ich-habe-nur-gezeigt-dass-es-die-bombe-gibt/
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-08/no-big-data-didn-t-win-the-u-s-election
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump
Trump won by a tiny margin in a few swing states - highly targeted strategic communication may well have helped. But the role of CA is probably being overblown a bit.
That said, this from Tett's piece in the FT
Rings very true to me - there was some pretty classic voter suppression going on alongside the dogwhistling.