I'm skeptically but excitedly awaiting the new report. CA did some shady shit, but they also have an incentive to claim that they personally delivered the goods for Trump. Nothing could drum up business from other dickholes like a claim that you got Trump elected. I stand firmly by my conviction that racists got Trump elected and that they really didn't need Facebook's help. All the Trump voters I know fall into (a) fingers in the ear screaming about hating Hillary, (b) I don't give a hit who I vote for as long as my taxes are lower, and (c) implicitly and explicitly racist people. None of those categories are mutually exclusive of the others, or course. All that said, FB taking a nosedive would make me happy. Fuck them hard.
You were right to be skeptical. It was a little bit underwhelming, but it's hard to top yesterday's Ukranian hookers admission. The new report explicitly acknowledged that CA stood everything to gain from claiming that they were responsible for Trump's election victory in what they presumed was a sales meeting, and off the record. CA claimed that they engineered the "lock her up" tagline and accompanying media, which they then passed to the campaign. Like 'bl00 said, they touted their targeting of the emotional core of any given debate, and were very methodical in deciding to target swing states that Hillary failed to campaign in adequately. You might've caught this last month, but the votes for Stein were encouraged by the Russians, effectively depleting the democratic turnout for Hilldawg. That there is a similarity in tactics between Russian and CA approaches to misinformation, kompromat, emotional appeals, etc. is very disconcerting, though not necessarily direct evidence that they worked together. I still think it's quite likely that Mueller will get Flynn or Bannon to concede that the campaign shared intel and/or funding with the Russians. And Kushner's got a baby face that looks like it could positively sing if he's ever on the stand. Either way, the Mercers are terrible people. Terrible people with absurdly large foreheads.
Have you watched the Channel 4 stuff? It's about 40 minutes of your time (so far) and totally worth it. One of the points they make is that elections are driven entirely by emotion, and what Cambridge Analytica did was surgically target emotion to achieve the electoral outcomes they wanted. Targeting on "daisy" is "people watching Patty Duke." Targeting on "south united" could be as granular as "men 16-22 within 2 miles of zip 90210 who like sports, exercise and sci fi television." You're right: at the end of the day, that person has to vote. But at the end of the day, he had to have a reason.
I haven't had the opportunity to watch yet, but I will. Did they put effort into suppression, as well (in an area where I can't watch the clips). I'm intrigued by how many people just didn't vote. Mitt Romney got more GO votes in MI than Trump yet Trump won. Turnout was low, and a bunch of morons voted Stein or Johnson. Targeting none of the above a la Brewster's millions was probably more effective than convincing people to vote psychopath.