That is to say: "tipping the 2016 election" wouldn't require a "big difference" in voter behavior
-
-
Replying to @matt_blackwell @deaneckles and
When 70k votes decide an election in a country of 350M a lot of things are a but-for cause.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Andrew___Baker @matt_blackwell and
Say all the ad spend was in exactly the right states. Still wouldn't that be the lowest cost-per-vote ever estimated? Aren't most estimates for say turnout at least 10 times higher?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles @matt_blackwell and
Maybe, don't know this literature that well. But can we really assume it's a homogeneous effect over time? 2016 was crazy weird, and I don't think we can model how these ads interacted with all the other events that happened at the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Andrew___Baker @matt_blackwell and
We are talking less than $1/vote. I know of no credible studies getting anywhere close to that. I am not saying it is impossible. But it is not particularly plausible.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles @Andrew___Baker and
I pointed to TV ad persuasion estimate of 1-3/10,000 exposures here https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/fake-news-and-bots-may-be-worrisome-but-their-political-power-is-overblown.amp.html …. Given FB ads/posts are lower impact, I’d guess effect was order of magnitude lower. Hard to get to 80k votes at Russian volume.
@johnmsides quotes pol who spent more on FB for NV AG cand.2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @deaneckles and
But I want to put this on the agenda for the persuasion section of the proposed
@dbroockman /@davidshor dialogue2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @sivavaid @deaneckles and
I did. Doesn’t overcome this objection in my view. See also Identity Crisis (which I’m reading next)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @sivavaid and
From
@BrendanNyhan's piece. This is the right way to think about potential impact, not just bandying about absolute reach numbers which look big but aren't in the FB/TWTR context. I read Jamieson's Post piece, and the NYer review of the book you cited. I found it unconvincing.pic.twitter.com/vlrFh4m99E
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
When the FB released the first Russian reach numbers, I did a back-of-the envelope calculation of what fraction of total election media they must have been, and it was <1% (as was an estimate they eventually tweeted). The Russians were piddly-boo in the scheme of things.
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.

