“Again the graph shows no harm done.”
The graph depicts an assumed outcome.
You cannot quantify damages, or the lack thereof, in an actual event, by an assumed outcome of that event.
The problem for Ted is damages ARE assumed because of the apology.
The graph depicts an assumed outcome.The outcome is most definitely not assumed but tallied and recorded votes.
The assumed outcome is your spin against data depicted in the graph. The graph shows Carson gaining on election day after going down in the poll right before. If you want to convince people Carson would have gone from 9% to 30% then you will need to show how that is plausible. Rubio gained the most, was already gaining the most in the polls and stood out at the last debate that Donald Ducked.
You can assume damages all you like. You have to assume damages because the graph shows otherwise. Which is exactly why I posted it, for the full information plotted on it.
I hope there is someone near you who can explain how the graph shows Trump lost against expectations from the polls, that showed him leading all the way until he blew it at the end. Which you strangely tried to deny. If you can make that kind of blatant error and use an apology as showing damages then you wasted enough of my time. Good night.
Donald Trump says he came in first in Iowa. He didn’t, by any measure.Plenty about the graph there for you to read about. Also makes a joke of your spin about not expecting Trump to win. Especially since he himself says he won. LoL!