Yea, I don't know what's going on besides what I read.

I would much rather see the screenshot for myself then have someone else explain to me what they think the most important aspects of it are.

If you grease up both candidates, your long-term success is not contingent on the current administration.

Since it's incredibly unlikely that an anti-surveillance, anti-warhawk, anti-police state candidate will ever become president, and it's incredibly unlikely that congress will be dominated by those sorts of folks, I think Palantir's business model is safe as houses.

Plus the party power brokers seem to stick around for a long time. It's really only the executive branch that changes often.

> That is essentially a lobby-dependent business model with long-term success contingent on the currently elected administration.

Unfortunately these type of setups tend not to care who is in power. As the types in power are never against this type of company. Look at Democrat support for NSLs (Obama notably expanded use of them despite being against them while campaigning).

I may have missed this in the article but I don't think the S&M expense of $450M per year was broken out by Government vs. Commercial segments. That would be more relevant to the discussion to estimate the expense allocation between direct sales forces for gov & enterprise, pure media/advertising spend, and lobbying.