Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked April 4, 2020

Created

Sun Oct 20 15:56:33 +0000 2019

Likes

393

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

It's not baffling at all! It has an incredibly simple explanation, in fact, although one that implicitly undercuts the article's thesis: There's nothing magic about digital ad spending. — PolitiTweet.org

big ol piece on trump backers dominating FB political ad spend from @AllMattNYT and @kevinroose this graph right… https://t.co/i7oBn7Fyha

Posted Oct. 20, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Where's the evidence that Trump's digital ads were very effective? Most of it seems to be a lot of bragging by Brad Parscale, amplified by media that would like you to ignore more obvious explanations for how Trump won, such as obsessive media coverage of Clinton's emails. — PolitiTweet.org

No. Yes, she spent more, but largely on television. Trump’s targeted, digital spending was very effective in ‘16 an… https://t.co/lnAMDnOtLn

Posted Oct. 20, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

We're supposed to believe that the Trump campaign is a bunch of super-geniuses for spending extensively on Facebook ads, whereas everyone who works for one of the 19 Democratic campaigns is an idiot? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 20, 2019 Hibernated