EAllusion wrote:I may be mistaken, but I think the most recent indictments are the first official confirmation we've had that Russia was actively attempting to bolster the Stein campaign to peel away votes from Clinton. Anyone paying attention already knew this, but I haven't seen it show up in any charges or intelligence conclusions up to this point.
It was the first I'd heard it confirmed.
I'm curious how people's perspectives are affected by reading the Russian campaign included pushing support of Sanders? Does it matter to anyone? I'm curious because it leaves open the crazy reality that the only reason we didn't have the two primary winners going into the General Election be the two directly being pushed by Russian trolls is the Democrat primary relying on super delegates to offset populist irrationality...
I think the Bernie pushing was based on the calculation that Clinton had it in the bag, which she did, in an effort to sow division within the Democratic party and depress Democratic turnout in the general. This should be kept distinct from believing that a president Bernie would serve Russian interests or be so incompetent as to undermine America's prominence in the world.
The latter two is why electing Trump was so important to Russia that they were willing to undergo a moderately risky espionage effort to enhance the chances of it happening. I wonder if people like Ajax wonder at all why Russia, who does not have the US's best interests at heart, was so intent on getting Trump in office. Does he wonder at all what's in it for them?
EAllusion wrote:I think the Bernie pushing was based on the calculation that Clinton had it in the bag, which she did, in an effort to sow division within the Democratic party and depress Democratic turnout in the general. This should be kept distinct from believing that a president Bernie would serve Russian interests or be so incompetent as to undermine America's prominence in the world.
The latter two is why electing Trump was so important to Russia that they were willing to undergo a moderately risky espionage effort to enhance the chances of it happening. I wonder if people like Ajax wonder at all why Russia, who does not have the US's best interests at heart, was so intent on getting Trump in office. Does he wonder at all what's in it for them?
I would agree with your comments, EA, but it seems like we should be much more troubled by the idea that a quirky change in the Democrat primary process imposed after a primary challenge of a sitting President less than 40 years ago was the only thing that prevented the general election being between two candidates the Russians were pushing.
The concern here isn't about the goal of the Russians, though that is concerning. The concern I'm pointing out is what it says about the ability of voter opinion to be manipulated.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:I would agree with your comments, EA, but it seems like we should be much more troubled by the idea that a quirky change in the Democrat primary process imposed after a primary challenge of a sitting President less than 40 years ago was the only thing that prevented the general election being between two candidates the Russians were pushing.
The concern here isn't about the goal of the Russians, though that is concerning. The concern I'm pointing out is what it says about the ability of voter opinion to be manipulated.
I'm not sure what you mean. Clinton destroyed Sanders in the popular vote. It wasn't superdelegates that won the primary for Clinton. It was elections. If Sanders won the popular vote, I'm fairly certain that he would've pulled the superdelegates to his side. They're mostly a formality at this point.
There are hardcore Sanders supporters who are convinced that their rightful victory in the primary was somehow stolen from them - a narrative getting a boost from Russia conveniently enough - but the reality is that Clinton just appealed to more Democrat primary voters.
EAllusion wrote:but the reality is that Clinton just appealed to more Democrat primary voters.
Yes, but mostly old voters. I did knock doors for the Sanders campaign. I was with a girl knocking doors, and she herself told me "I think many of these women are just voting for Hillary because she is a woman". I won't forget her words. She came to the conclusion after having long conversations with some women.
EAllusion wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Clinton destroyed Sanders in the popular vote. It wasn't superdelegates that won the primary for Clinton. It was elections. If Sanders won the popular vote, I'm fairly certain that he would've pulled the superdelegates to his side. They're mostly a formality at this point.
Yes, but I remember news outlets putting super-delegate numbers for Clinton right after Sanders won the New Hampshire primary. That was wrong on so many levels, it created the bandwagon effect.
It could be the case that with the bandwagon effect the media helped Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure you remember the discussions from the primary period when Sanders supporters complained of the media describing Clinton as winning due to the addition of the super delegates committed to her being added to the totals in reporting while arguing he was a much less controversial candidate to have in the general election as evidenced by how little was said about him negatively in the media. The argument being that the inclusion of super delegates in the reporting made it look like she had clinched the nomination. He wasn't really out of the race until early summer and the role of super delegates in both the reporting and the ultimate totals can't be discounted, given the importance of turn out in primary elections.
Point being, this isn't just an issue with the Republican voters but rather voters of all stripes. The malaise around the election was palpable if we want to look at the broader goal of sowing distrust in the system. The Russian message that the system is broken, the candidates suck, and our vote doesn't matter in the big picture was widely successful if one anecdotally looks at the messaging on this board alone.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:but the reality is that Clinton just appealed to more Democrat primary voters.
Yes, but mostly old voters. I did knock doors for the Sanders campaign. I was with a girl knocking doors, and she herself told me "I think many of these women are just voting for Hillary because she is a woman". I won't forget her words. She came to the conclusion after having long conversations with some women.
EAllusion wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Clinton destroyed Sanders in the popular vote. It wasn't superdelegates that won the primary for Clinton. It was elections. If Sanders won the popular vote, I'm fairly certain that he would've pulled the superdelegates to his side. They're mostly a formality at this point.
Yes, but I remember news outlets putting super-delegate numbers for Clinton right after Sanders won the New Hampshire primary. That was wrong on so many levels, it created the bandwagon effect.
It could be the case that with the bandwagon effect the media helped Hillary Clinton.
Question, DT: Why did Sanders have your vote?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote: The argument being that the inclusion of super delegates in the reporting made it look like she had clinched the nomination. He wasn't really out of the race until early summer and the role of super delegates in both the reporting and the ultimate totals can't be discounted, given the importance of turn out in primary elections.
DoubtingThomas wrote:It could be the case that with the bandwagon effect the media helped Hillary Clinton.
Maybe, but there isn't enough evidence to conclude that and it seems rather remote given that she won by a landslide. No doubt having the full institutional support of almost every Democratic leader helped her, but that's distinct from whether having superdelegate votes helped her.
Interestingly, Clinton really wasn't covered as the inevitable Democratic nominee even though she was as much of a lock for a party nomination as we've seen for a non-incumbent. The superdelegate coverage never really morphed into a narrative about her inevitability. If anything, the race was over-covered as competitive long after Sanders had effectively no shot at winning.
honorentheos wrote:I'm sure you remember the discussions from the primary period when Sanders supporters complained of the media describing Clinton as winning due to the addition of the super delegates committed to her being added to the totals in reporting while arguing he was a much less controversial candidate to have in the general election as evidenced by how little was said about him negatively in the media. The argument being that the inclusion of super delegates in the reporting made it look like she had clinched the nomination. He wasn't really out of the race until early summer and the role of super delegates in both the reporting and the ultimate totals can't be discounted, given the importance of turn out in primary elections.
Point being, this isn't just an issue with the Republican voters but rather voters of all stripes. The malaise around the election was palpable if we want to look at the broader goal of sowing distrust in the system. The Russian message that the system is broken, the candidates suck, and our vote doesn't matter in the big picture was widely successful if one anecdotally looks at the messaging on this board alone.
Sanders refused to drop out of the race until the early Summer, but he was mathematically knocked out of it by super-Tuesday. The only chance he of winning at that point was soul-destroying scandal or death that would force Clinton out of the race anyway. He never was as close as Clinton was to Obama in 2008 when the calls for her to drop out were at a fever pitch.
This is a reminder that all Russia did was reinforce narratives that were already present and primed within the American public. That's why it is so bloody hard to know to what extent that influence altered voting behavior. Their greatest success was just giving a small assist to a media culture that ate Clinton alive.
honorentheos wrote:Question, DoubtingThomas: Why did Sanders have your vote?
Sanders and Lawrence Lessig were the only two candidates against Money In Politics. Money in Politics is perhaps the biggest problem in our country, it's the root of all evil. Look at the NRA for example. Look at anti-climate science propaganda machines.
I also like the idea of universal healthcare, but I can't be 100% certain it is going to work here in the US. But I do feel we should try it.
I did like Clinton's advocacy for groundbreaking medical research. I love her support for human cloning, including one called therapeutic cloning intended to create customized cells to treat disease. Human cloning is perhaps the only issue I strongly agree with Hillary.