I suggest T won by 88,000 votes in three states.https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/906570114006441984 …
-
-
Replying to @mfbenson1
I suggest two of those were states where that $1B didn't get spent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
We are in agreement. In fact that makes the $100k expenditure that much more efficient.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mfbenson1
We're actually not. I'm saying that $100K is (if that's all there is) miniscule given scope of spending this year.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @mfbenson1
If it DID make the difference ( it could have in MI and WI), that was significantly bc Hillary was not advertising there. A vacuum to fill.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
True enough, but that's because she spent money in places that she did win.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mfbenson1
Yes. CA. Turns out that's a very very very very good way to lose a POTUS election decided by EC. But also, AZ. She lost there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mfbenson1
You're right. After losing in 2008, Hillary should have figured out why she lost. After losing MI primary, she should have figured out why
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @mfbenson1
It does not, actually, take an ounce of hindsight to know that you invest in states where election will be decided, not where it won't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As I've said repeatedly, I hold out possibility RU hacked Hillary's analytics. Short of that, she owns her CA over MI and WI decisions.
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.