The proof of influence argument drives me crazy. How, looking back on an historical event, do you proof influence? Given the very strange nature of this past election, the popular vote going to the losing candidate, and the narrow margin of victory, the concerns as to what influenced the decisions leading to the outcome will not go away.
This reminds me of the philosopher’s question regarding whether a tree falling in a forest with no one around makes a sound. Logic would suggest that it does, but it is true that there is no way to know.
Social scientists would likely do some study to determine whether a given variable may have been influential. So, for instance, if you could find naive individuals and divide them into two groups. You could ask one group to rate Mr. Trump on 10 point character scale. You could have the second group read the most recent two-page story describing Mr. Trump’s experience with Russian prostitutes and then have this group rate Mr. Trump’s character. If you found a difference in the ratings would you consider that reading the story had an influence?
Not fair. That story was not true (or at least we do not know it was true). Neither, it turns out were speculations of evidence of wrong-doing that were generated by the late Comey letter regarding Clinton’s email. It does not mean that what turned out to be false was not influential when first released.
Thinking about my thought experiment I must say I am not certain that the ratings of character would change. Given what everyone had already seen and heard in Trump’s own words I guess I am not certain that adding another story would matter.