had sent a targeted message to people identified on facebook as hillary voters and encouragedd them to vote, he could have made it will look like 450,000 and changed the course of the election. that s a lot of power for one media company to have. even if you are for mark zuckerberg s political views, should any company have the ability to change election outcomes the way facebook does? no. i think you are giving them too much credit. first of all, i am not a fan of that political worldview. i am a fan of free enterprise and letting them do what they will. by that standard, you can say, how many people vote, does the new york times editorial accusing a candidate or anyone else making an influence. i am very wary of the facebook site as a user. but this discussion of, should we censore that, knock back ther political influence, and are they a gigantic monopoly, i think that s crazy. tucker: they are literally a monopoly. in the digital ad space
poll, the site went up a week ago. when we put up posts about it, we were getting tons of search hits for it. so there s this huge thirst. as you said, i remember during past elections, every losing candidate has had this. the hillary voters in the 2008 primary had their own circle. they were convinced that the support for obama was way overstated. you were totally right about 2004, the 2002. like every election this happens, but the weird how this really happened in the last week was kind of remarkable. isn t this i think this is sort of a subset of a larger trend on the right? it s been going on for a really long time. there s a sort of combination of self-pity and sort of feeding the idea that they are victims of this massive conspiracy by the left to lie about everything and that they are truly the majority. i ve been calling it the fun house mirror. i love your characterization of it even more. but there is this notion that everything is a lie. climate change is a lie. the ide