"Authored by Mark Penn, former chief strategist on Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign; via The Wall Street Journal...
Russia didn’t win Trump the White House any more than China re-elected Bill Clinton in 1996.The fake news about fake news is practically endless.
Americans worried about Russia’s influence in the 2016 election have seized on a handful of Facebook ads—as though there weren’t also three 90-minute debates, two televised party conventions, and $2.4 billion spent on last year’s campaign.
The danger is that bending facts to fit the Russia story line may nudge Washington into needlessly and recklessly regulating the internet and curtailing basic freedoms.
- After an extensive review, Facebook has identified $100,000 of ads that came from accounts associated with Russia.
Assume for the sake of argument that Vladimir Putin personally authorized this expenditure.
Given its divisive nature, the campaign could be dubbed “From Russia, With Hate”—except it would make for a disappointing James Bond movie.
Analyzing the pattern of expenditures, and doing some back-of-the-envelope math, it’s clear this was no devilishly effective plot.
- Facebook says 56% of the ads ran after the election, reducing the tally that could have influenced the result to about $44,000.
- It also turns out the ads were not confined to swing states but also shown in places like New York, California and Texas. Supposing half the ads went to swing states brings the total down to $22,000.
- Facebook also counted ads as early as June 2015. ssuming they were evenly spread and we want only those that ran the year of the election, that knocks it down to $13,000.
- Most of the ads did not solicit support for a candidate and carried messages on issues like racism, immigration and guns. The actual electioneering then amounts to about $6,500..."
Read on!
No comments:
Post a Comment