Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized.

Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways:

- The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters.

- Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect.

I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.