Here begins the lesson on how to make an argument. The burden of proof rests on the affirmative. Absent evidence, you cannot say "this changed votes that would have gone to Hillary." You could as easily argue that Hillary's ads changed votes that might have gone to Trump. /1https://twitter.com/realpaolathomas/status/968703525768241152 …
-
Show this thread
-
The most you can say - without evidence - is that it's "possible." Because, sure, lots of things are possible. But not all things are probable. The fact that a lot of the bullshit on Facebook came from Russians doesn't make it magical. /2
10 replies 8 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
To say "it happened and she lost and therefore that's why she lost" is just stupid. Er, I mean, it's "motivated reasoning," in which you assume the thing that is important to you is the thing that mattered to the result. /3
11 replies 7 retweets 54 likesShow this thread -
I can't remember who said it, but the strongest polling evidence is that if the timing of the Comey letter and the Access Hollywood tape had been reversed, Clinton likely would have won. But to believe memes and crazy Twitter worked is to believe there were real undecideds. /4
19 replies 12 retweets 80 likesShow this thread
I think that's too strong a statement. The Access Hollywood tape was quickly followed with data releases, which in turn were promoted heavily? Did that and similar thing make a large enough difference? Hard to know, even with these thin margins.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.