This Buzzfeed piece is getting a lot of attention today. Here’s an example:
As for articles mentioning the witnesses by name, Vindman and Yovanovitch have been targeted the most heavily. The second-most-shared story about Vindman was a Breitbart piece titled “Alexander Vindman Admits Making Up Parts Of Trump Call Summary” (97,300 engagements). The top story about Yovanovitch was by the New York Post, titled “Marie Yovanovitch Admits Obama Admin Prepped Her On Hunter Biden” (141,100 engagements), which was shared 15,000 times from the Texas for Donald Trump 2020 Facebook page and 10,000 times from the Silent Majority page.
The point of the piece is that in the Facebook/right-wing bubble, all the little bullshit droppings left by Nunes, Jordan, etc. are magnified into stories that are then shared by people who didn’t watch the hearings.
We all know that there’s a hard floor for Trump’s support in the upper-30s to low 40-s. My question after reading the story is whether the shares that are documented in the piece mainly have an audience of upper-30 percenters, or if they’re swaying the undecided or the uninformed. I’m thinking the former, not the latter.
Another way of saying this is that I’m perfectly willing to accept that the Republicans aren’t going to do shit about Trump in the House or the Senate, that Fox News viewership is up, that shit-sharing on Facebook is up, and that generally the core Republican base is going to shrug off impeachment. I’m not willing to say that those facts further damage our chances in the 2020 election, or that impeachment didn’t hurt Trump. I’ll wait to see some polls and fundraising numbers, because those matter a hell of a lot more than shares in the Facebook Republican bubble.