And you know this how?
-
-
Replying to @shmr50
Sigh. For the FOURTH time, bc study shows that Hillary's ads were historically void of policy.
@TheRealJMole@matthewstoller4 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
And for the 4th time, you haven't explained why you think policy ads would have worked!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shmr50
For 5th time, that's not Q. It's that YOU are holding voters accountable for policies not advertised
@TheRealJMole@matthewstoller3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @shmr50
You can go back and say you were an idiot for doing that and we'll be done.
@TheRealJMole@matthewstoller1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Well, since I did not do that... pass
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shmr50
emptywheel Retweeted
Sure you did. Right here.
@TheRealJMole@matthewstoller https://twitter.com/shmr50/status/844872555383177217 …emptywheel added,
This Tweet is unavailable.2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Wasn't that the substance of her most popular ad, "Measure"?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @TheRealJMole
You mean an ad that wasn't shown in either WI or MI, bc she showed no ads in either state until last 2 weeks?
@matthewstoller2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @matthewstoller
Again, did they make their decision based on lack of tv ads or because they were blaming incumbent party for their lot in life.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Probably both. But NOT doing ads (and not showing up in rural areas, as Obama did) means both count against you.
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.