Profile picture
Dana Houle @DanaHoule
, 10 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
Comey/journalists RE whether polls/models said Clinton would win assumes it was OK to hurt Clinton enough that it would narrow her win margin as long as it wasn’t so bad it took away her lead.

“We’re allowed to put our thumbs on the scales, but the scales were poorly calibrated”
So if that’s the assumption, that they can put their thumbs on the scales but only if it causes minimal damage to someone’s candidacy, what are metrics? Is there a scale? Like, if it’s within 3 points, you don’t intervene, but if it’s over 3 points you can? Is there a buffer? /2
Like, nothing that will bring the margin within 2 points can be done, but if it’s a 5 point lead & the damage is calculated to be worth 2 points, that’s OK? But what if two parties have independent hit jobs? Say, it’s a 5 point lead, each has a 2 point hit, it goes within… /3
…the 2 point buffer zone, and do to margin of error issues, it turns out that the combination of the two hits cost the candidate the election. Which party is responsible? Both? Neither? Or should there be some independent entity through which all damaging press or actions…4/
…against a candidate are submitted, and that authority makes sure the press/outside actor effect on the campaign doesn’t exceed the approved amounts?

These are just the extensions of that assumption that it’s OK to tip the scales, but not too much. /5
But if we’re going to assume it’s OK to tip the scales in one race, how do we control for collateral effects? For instance, it’s reasonable to assume that if Clinton had won the popular vote by 3-4 points instead of 2, she would have won the electoral college. But how would…/6
…that affect other races? Because it’s also reasonable to assume that if she won by 5 points, and it was a generally consistent effect nationally, that Dems would have won the Senate races in MO, NC, probably WI & maybe even FL. So is it OK to hurt a candidate less than what…/7
…would cost that candidate the election, but enough that, for a presidential or gubernatorial candidate, enough to cost that candidate her party’s control of a legislative or Congressional chamber?
If it’s OK for press to put their thumbs on the scale, let’s codify it, right? /8
A clarification: I don’t think most of the press or institutional players who damaged Clinton did it w goal of hurting her. They all had their own personal &/or institutional reasons. For being hard on her. But in a lot of cases I think they saw the whacks at Clinton as free…/9
…of serious costs. But seemingly small costs added up. And while no single whack at her was sufficient by itself to cost her victory, theywere cumulatively necessary. Take just about any of the big ones away & she wins. /10
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Dana Houle
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!