I walk into the Senate Chambers for the first time in forever, and the first thread I see isn't even a debate thread?
I found the dynamics of the last presidential election fascinating, and followed them in depth. I know what's meant here by "game-changer", and it's ridiculous. Obama's alleged ties to ACORN were completely irrelevant to the election, whether or not they should have been, as were many other things that perhaps should have mattered, did not, and would still have not with slight tweaking such as this. This story, even if 100% true, would have made ultimately zero difference.
Incidentally, that's a very good reason to believe Mrs. Heidelbaugh is simply lying. That's besides her obvious motivations to do so. I find it hard to believe that the NYT believed something like this would be a "game-changer". Even if she is telling the truth, it just means the NYT were foolish.
But this thread doesn't appear to be about that. It appears to be making an argument that this would have actually altered the outcome of the last election.
No offense to the thread-maker or anything, but... Really?