https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33759251/2017-08_electionReport_0.pdf?sequence=5 The graphs on page 7 encapsulate - though the assessments of “positive” vs “negative“ appear dubious and perhaps naive or framed. (In point of observation, this entire report occasionally succumbs to an apparently unconscious adoption of scaling, framing, and terms, from the authoritarian right media - despite its ostensible and even self-conscious attempts to lean against that identified pressure). Sample:
Um...upon developing the thoughts you've articulated above as goes the "appearance of dubiousness," did you "flip" to the relevant part of the study whereby the researchers identify their methodology? If, so what there supports your "appearance of dubiousness" assertion?
Nope. I evaluated the outcome, based on knowledge of the situation. The supporting evidence of bias and naivety gleaned from the text of the article was secondary, although since it is visible to anyone here I thought it worth mentioning.