Nate Silver is a loyal establishment Dem, BUT he can also do simple math.

What set off Silver was articles like this:

Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump win election, reports say



Building support for Stein was one of a “roster of themes” the Moscow-sanctioned internet trolls “turned to repeatedly” in their effort to disrupt the election, according to a research team led by the New Knowledge cybersecurity firm. The researchers also found that the campaign to bolster Stein gained in intensity in the final days of the presidential campaign and largely targeted African-American voters. The reports, prepared by separate groups of cyber experts, add to the growing body of evidence that the Russians worked to boost the Stein campaign as part of the effort to siphon support away from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and tilt the election to Trump. An NBC News analysis found that Russians working under the direction of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based firm run by a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, tweeted the phrase “Jill Stein” over 1,000 times around the time of the election.

There are two big problems with this story, but only if you can think for yourself.

Normally Silver wouldn't say anything about this, but the math just didn't make any sense.

For instance, this story makes a big deal about a (post-election) Russian social media disinformation campaign on Bob Mueller based on... 5,000 tweets? That's **nothing**. Platform-wide, there are something like 500,000,000 tweets posted each day.https://t.co/LI8wt6tua8 pic.twitter.com/I2XOIf0rdy — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 18, 2018

What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I'm not sure what the answer is, but suspect it's low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 18, 2018

Oh, noes! Common sense!

The narrative falls apart when you have something to compare it to.

The narrative gets even worse the more things you compare it to.



While the debate rages on over how much Russia really influenced the results of the 2016 presidential elections, one detail put the entire controversy in perspective: Democratic operatives spent an identical amount of money on their project to create a Russian bot “false flag” campaign during the Alabama 2017 special election.

The entire premise of "Russia hacked the election" makes no sense based on the size of the effort.

As you could imagine, the idiots on DKos ate this up with a spoon anyway.



No surprise here. That she was being wined and dined at Putin’s table mere months before the 2016 campaign season began in earnest, made it obvious to most sentient humans that she was Russia’s candidate, propped up to drain support from Hillary. But seeing it confirmed in a Senate report is chilling. Hillary was robbed. America was attacked. We are at war.

When you have no perspective, everything looks like war.

The other problem with this story is the source of this latest hype.

Who is New Knowledge cybersecurity?

Jimmy Dore found out for us - it's a bunch of Democratic Party insiders.