Adidas EQT Support 93/17 - BZ0584,Adidas Outdoor Terrex Agravic Speed Trail Running Shoe - Women's Black/BlackYeezy Boost 350 v2 Gray and Orange Beluga size 11 US,SHIP NOW Adidas Pharrell Williams Human Race NMD Hu Solar 8-13 Black Red BB9527,Women's ADIDAS Tubular Size 11 Grey Black Athletic Ortholite Sneakers ShoesAdidas Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Copper Size 8.5,KITH X ADIDAS SOCCER ACE 16+ PURECONTROL ULTRABOOST MULTICOLOR SIZE 9,Adidas Originals EQT Racing 91 Women's Sneakers Size 8.5/ Black/ Turbo,Adidas Ultra Boost 3.0 Dark Green Size 13. S82024 yeezy nmd pk,Women's Black Adidas Flashback Lace-Up Sneakers Size 8.5 Brand New!!!,ADIDAS NMD HUMAN RACE PHARRELL HU TR PW TRAIL MULTI NOBLE INK,yeezy boost 350 V2 blue tint US Men’s 5.5 F 38 BRAND NEW NEVER WORN!!,Adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 butter,Adidas Originas ZX Flux Women’s Running Shoes BY9219 White Cream Size 7,Adidas Cloudfoam Racer TR CG5764 Women's Sneakers,1804 adidas ULTRABOOST LACELESS Men's Training Running Shoes BB6140,Adidas Women's AlphaBOUNCE EM W Running Shoe BW1199 Energy Blue Size 8 1/2,Adidas Ultra Boost 3.0 TRIPLE BLACK 2.0 Primeknit yeezy ronnie fieg s 8.5 DS NIB,Adidas Ultra Boost ST Ray Red Womens Running Trainers Size Rare Shoes,ADIDAS PW HUMAN RACE NMD TANGERINE Sz 6 BB3070,Yeezy 350 V2 Beluga 2.0 size 8.5,ADIDAS SUPERSTAR 80S X CLOT "BLUE" G63523,Adidas Originals NMD R2 Primeknit Boost Women Shoes BY8691 CG3601 BY9953 BY9525WORN TWICE Adidas Yeezy Boost 350 V1 Moonrock Oxford Green Size 8 AQ2660,Adidas x Ronnie Fieg Ultra Boost Mid Multi Color KITH Aspen Boosts BY2592 Sz 6.5,adidas Originals Men's Pureboost Running Shoe, Night Navy/Blue/Mystery B...,adidas Originals BY9111 Womens EQT Support Adv W- Choose SZ/Color.,Women Adidas CQ2116 Swift Run Running shoes white black grey sneakers,Adidas NMD R1 PK Color Static Multicolor Size 11.5. BW1126 yeezy ultra boost,ADIDAS ZX FLUX ADV VIRTUE PK W PRIMEKNIT SIZE 7.5 BLUE- LEGINK/TECINK/CWHITE NIB,
Adidas NMD R1 PK "OG" Prime Knit Size 11 (Pre Owned) GREAT CONDITION !!!,
Even the Clinton campaign has stopped short of attributing its loss to the Russians. Joel Benenson, the campaign’s pollster, told me that “a global power is fucking with our elections,” and that “every American should be outraged, whether it changed the outcome or not.” But did the meddling alter the outcome? “How will we ever know?” he said. “We probably won’t, until some Russians involved in it are actually prosecuted—or some Republican, in a moment of conscience, talks.”
Politicians may be too timid to explore the subject, but a new book from, of all places, Oxford University Press promises to be incendiary. “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, dares to ask—and even attempts to answer—whether Russian meddling had a decisive impact in 2016. Jamieson offers a forensic analysis of the available evidence and concludes that Russia very likely delivered Trump’s victory.
New with box: A brand-new, unused, and unworn item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as ... Read moreabout the condition
|US Shoe Size (Men's):||12|
The book, which is coming out less than two months before the midterm elections, at a moment when polls suggest that some sixty per cent of voters disapprove of Trump, may well reignite the question of Trump’s electoral legitimacy. The President’s supporters will likely characterize the study as an act of partisan warfare. But in person Jamieson, who wears her gray hair in a pixie cut and favors silk scarves and matronly tweeds, looks more likely to suspend a troublemaker than to be one. She is seventy-one, and has spent forty years studying political speeches, ads, and debates. Since 1993, she has directed the Annenberg Public Policy Center, at Penn, and in 2003 she co-founded FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan watchdog group. She is widely respected by political experts in both parties, though her predominantly male peers have occasionally mocked her scholarly intensity, calling her the Drill Sergeant. As Steven Livingston, a professor of political communication at George Washington University, puts it, “She is the epitome of a humorless, no-nonsense social scientist driven by the numbers. She doesn’t bullshit. She calls it straight.”
Indeed, when I met recently with Jamieson, in a book-lined conference room at the Annenberg Center, in Philadelphia, and asked her point-blank if she thought that Trump would be President without the aid of Russians, she didn’t equivocate. “No,” she said, her face unsmiling. Clearly cognizant of the gravity of her statement, she clarified, “If everything else is a constant? No, I do not.”
Jamieson said that, as an academic, she hoped that the public would challenge her arguments. Yet she expressed confidence that unbiased readers would accept her conclusion that it is not just plausible that Russia changed the outcome of the 2016 election—it is “likely that it did.”
An airtight case, she acknowledges, may never be possible. In the introduction to her new book, she writes that any case for influence will likely be similar to that in a civil legal trial, “in which the verdict is rendered not with the certainty that e=mc2 but rather based on the preponderance of evidence.” But, she points out, “we do make most of life’s decisions based on less-than-rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence.” In Philadelphia, she noted to me that “we convict people on probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and we’ve executed people based on inferences from available evidence.” She argued that “the standard of proof being demanded” by people claiming it’s impossible to know whether Russia delivered the White House to Trump is “substantially higher than the standard of proof we ordinarily use in our lives.”
Her case is based on a growing body of knowledge about the electronic warfare waged by Russian trolls and hackers—whom she terms “discourse saboteurs”—and on five decades’ worth of academic studies about what kinds of persuasion can influence voters, and under what circumstances. Democracies around the world, she told me, have begun to realize that subverting an election doesn’t require tampering with voting machines. Extensive studies of past campaigns, Jamieson said, have demonstrated that “you can affect people, who then change their decision, and that alters the outcome.” She continued, “I’m not arguing that Russians pulled the voting levers. I’m arguing that they persuaded enough people to either vote a certain way or not vote at all.”
The effect of such manipulations could be momentous in an election as close as the 2016 race, in which Clinton got nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, and Trump won the Electoral College only because some eighty thousand votes went his way in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In two hundred and twenty-four pages of extremely dry prose, with four appendixes of charts and graphs and fifty-four pages of footnotes, Jamieson makes a strong case that, in 2016, “Russian masterminds” pulled off a technological and political coup. Moreover, she concludes, the American media “inadvertently helped them achieve their goals.”
When Jamieson set out to research the 2016 campaign—she has researched every Presidential election since 1976—she had no intention of lobbing a grenade. She was spending a peaceful sabbatical as a fellow at the Shorenstein Center, at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, exploring a rather narrow topic: the 2016 Presidential debates. She’d chosen this subject because, having devoted decades to examining the impact of advertising and other forms of persuasion on voters, she believed that most of the big questions in the field of political-campaign communications had been answered. Also, she admitted, “I have what you could call a debate fixation. Every year since 1996 I’ve done some kind of social-science look at the effects of debates.”
This expertise helped Jamieson notice something odd about the three debates between Trump and Clinton. As she told me, “The conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton had done pretty well.” According to CNN polls conducted immediately after the debates, she won all three, by a margin of thirteen per cent or greater. But, during the period of the debates, Jamieson and others at the Annenberg Center had overseen three telephone surveys, each sampling about a thousand adults. In an election that turned more than most on judgments of character, Americans who saw or heard the second and third debates, in particular, were more likely than those who hadn’t to agree that Clinton “says one thing in public and something else in private.” Jamieson found this statistic curious, because, by the time of the first debate, on September 26th, Clinton’s reputation for candor had already been tarnished by her failed attempt to hide the fact that she’d developed pneumonia, and by the revelation that, at a recent fund-raising event, she’d described some Trump supporters as “deplorables”—a slur that contradicted her slogan “Stronger Together.” Other Annenberg Center polling data indicated to Jamieson that concerns about Clinton being two-faced had been “baked in” voters’ minds since before the first debate. Clinton “had already been attacked for a very long time over that,” Jamieson recalls thinking. “Why would the debates have had an additional effect?”
After insuring that the surveys had been properly conducted, Jamieson analyzed whether this change in a voter’s perception of Clinton’s forthrightness predicted a change in his or her candidate preference. To her surprise, she found that it did: as she put it to me, there was a “small but significant drop in reported intention to vote for her.” This statistic, too, struck Jamieson as curious; she knew from years of scholarship that Presidential debates, barring major gaffes, typically “increase the likelihood that you’re casting a vote for, rather than against,” a candidate.
Last year, while Jamieson was trying to determine what could have caused viewers’ perception of Clinton’s character to fall so consequentially, the Washington Post asked her to write an op-ed addressing whether Russian operatives had helped to elect Trump. Jamieson agreed to do so, but, she admitted to me, “I frankly hadn’t thought about it one way or the other.”
Jamieson is scrupulously nonpartisan in her work. Beth Myers, who helped lead Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and worked with Jamieson on a bipartisan project about Presidential debates, told me, “If Kathleen has a point of view, I don’t know what it is. She’s extraordinarily evenhanded. She is fair and fearless.” Anita Dunn, a Democratic adviser to Barack Obama, agrees. She, too, worked with Jamieson on the Presidential-debates project, and she studied with her as an undergraduate. Jamieson, she says, “is constantly pointing out what the data actually shows, as opposed to those of us who just assert stuff.”
Wiffle Ball: A Gentleman’s Game
The McElrath twins key us in on what makes them the best of the best.
Adidas Adidas Adidas Yeezy 500 Blush Size 12 In hand deca7e
By Evan OsnosFeb. 24, 2017
By Jane MayerMar. 05, 2018
By Robin WrightSep. 25, 2018
By Ronan FarrowSep. 23, 2018