Eh, of course these aren't even supposed to directly champion one or the other. Their point is clearly to amplify the existing "us vs. them" mentality, make people even more entrenched, and to encourage the thinking on both sides that the other side is out to get them. Classic divide and conquer.
But how does this change results? There are still two main candidates. If those leaning toward A lean harder toward A, and those leaning toward B lean harder toward B, no votes were changed as a result of this effort. There is no box to check on the ballot for "I'm really sure, so count my vote twice!"
A great unmentioned step in this whole bizarre theoretical process is the idea that, absent some FB ads, lots of Republican voters would have looked deep into their souls the night before the election and realized that God and/or Rachel Maddow wanted them to vote for Hillary. This idea remains mostly unmentioned because it is really implausible. Those who believe it should examine this belief critically enough to stop believing it.
It isn't about the candidates - think about the long-con. Heated people in an argument tend to ignore rational reasoning. Heated, divided people tend to ignore olive branches "by the other side", and miss potential chances to talk it out and find the truth in the middle. Heated people tend to cherry-pick "facts" in the news/science to further their own agenda - and once when the populace is divided, it acts as a wonderfully lovely* buzz-saw tailor-made to erode democracy because people who fight to the death for "their side" and ignore others tend to make rather obtuse policy choices/votes over the course of the next few decades. Which in turn, impacts the US's global stance little-by-little.
>There is no box to check on the ballot for "I'm really sure, so count my vote twice!"
Besides what sibling comments said:
But there is the option of not voting/voting implausible 3rd candidate because screw the main 2.
So theoretically you could have non-influenced reps staying at home, because they dislike both candidates.
Or have influenced dems vote Bernie (or don't vote) because Hillary just isn't good enough, when without influence they'd have pinched their nose and voted Hillary.
Or if you don't insist on it being about who wins, you could imagine it about the loosing side being so riled up, that they hinder the winner and turn the winner into a lame-duck president.
