Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

And he didn’t keep talking about the WikiLeaks emails stolen by Russia because he thought voters didn’t care

[_Some Schmo]

Tyler, the Republican consultant, wonders how Trump supporters can argue that the social media ads and fake stories had no impact, when it was exactly the sort of thing the Trump campaign was doing itself. “You can’t say that what you were doing was effective, but what the Russians were doing wasn’t effective,” he said.

That kind of says it all, no?

[_Kishkumen]

People who are desperate will believe bull crap.

[_Markk]

People who are desperate will believe bull ____.

Yes...+1000

One Republican-leaning pollster, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the question is impossible to quantify with any certainty. To move that many votes in those three states, the pollster said, would mean moving about 600,000 votes nationally ― or about half a percentage point. That said, he added that Trump’s success in using WikiLeaks to hammer on about emails and thereby remind voters of Clinton’s biggest vulnerability ― the FBI probe into her emails ― clearly makes that kind of vote shift plausible.

Great reporting and source, to quote one NFL reporter, speaking on condition or anonymity "come on man!"

Trump had the media parroting his every move and statements for months and spent millions, and yes, managed to move votes...and yet a Russian sponsored add on an Instagram account for a fake group called Blacktivist gave the election to Trump?

[_EAllusion]

Markk -

There was sustained coverage of hacked emails that were the result of Russian espionage laundered through Wikileaks. This drove negative coverage of Clinton directly, primarily by generating breathless press coverage that provided fertile ground for Republican campaigners to mislead about them. Secondarily, it also likely combined into an uber "EMAILS!" scandal in low-information voters minds who were just aware that there was constant shady press talk of Clinton and emails.

It's hard to know how much this moved votes either through persuading swing voters or depressing Clinton turnout, but it is worth noting that certainly during the campaign Republicans behaved as though it were a significant issue that would move votes. Given that Clinton lost by a tiny fraction of votes in 3 states, it is quite plausible that it was sufficient to be decisive. The margin was so small that even tiny factors would be enough to be decisive. It would be more than a little surprising if the second most sustained negative story of the campaign didn't move a a few votes.

You reduced all of this the separate issue of Russian social media influencing which you then further reduced into a single instagram account. While you're short-shifting the potential influence of a social media disinformation campaign (which plausibly could be a drop in the bucket), you just completely ignored the most significant act of Russian influence in the election.

[_EAllusion]

It's also worth noting that the Podesta emails dropped almost immediately after the "Grab 'em by the pussy" recording leaked. That somehow managed to shift the media cycle to an extent off of candidate Trump confessing to being a serial sexual predator on tape. Moving the media past that story, to an extent, may have been its greatest coup. Enough to move a few thousand votes in 3 swing states? Yeah, there's a distinct possibility on that front alone.

[_Kishkumen]

I still think Hillary was a weak candidate. There were a lot of Hillary-haters going in to the election. Hillary-hating was practically a cult movement of its own. There was also an Establishment-hating movement going strong as well. That was obvious for quite some time. And why wouldn't it have been the case, when Wall Street screwed America over and went laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayer dollars? So you had more Bernie loving and Trump loving, tepid Hillary support, and the Russians hating Hillary too.

I think it is vital that we protect our elections--not that Trump cares since Russia was eager to help a feckless idiot they could manipulate into the presidency. That said, Establishment America dicked over the rest of the country and we continue to pay for it. I hate Trump, but I also hate the blind spot people have where the larger problems in America are concerned. Would I take Clinton over Trump? Yes. Would I have preferred Clinton over Bernie? Yes.

But a candidate must win in order to become that better leader. And, Hillary is a crappy campaigner. Full stop.

[_subgenius]

the sane argument can be applied to Hillary Clinton, except the conclusion is that even with Russian interference she could not win.

The goal of this Russian interference wasn't for a particular candidate to win.... how the OP can't recognize that reality is of no surprise.... like an upthread post noted - "People who are desperate will believe bull crap." ... and since Nov 6th 2016 no one is more desperate than the Dem/Lib faithful.

[_Themis]

The goal of this Russian interference wasn't for a particular candidate to win

That is an extraordinary stupid statement. There is no reason for Russians to be involved at all unless they want a particular person to win or a particular person to lose. I think we can both agree that Putin and his cronies are not our friends, so we should look at why they did get involved. Also they didn't hack into HC's emails to help her out.

[_Kevin Graham]

I still think Hillary was a weak candidate. There were a lot of Hillary-haters going in to the election. Hillary-hating was practically a cult movement of its own. There was also an Establishment-hating movement going strong as well. That was obvious for quite some time. And why wouldn't it have been the case, when Wall Street ____ America over and went laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayer dollars? So you had more Bernie loving and Trump loving, tepid Hillary support, and the Russians hating Hillary too.

I think it is vital that we protect our elections--not that Trump cares since Russia was eager to help a feckless idiot they could manipulate into the presidency. That said, Establishment America dicked over the rest of the country and we continue to pay for it. I hate Trump, but I also hate the blind spot people have where the larger problems in America are concerned. Would I take Clinton over Trump? Yes. Would I have preferred Clinton over Bernie? Yes.

But a candidate must win in order to become that better leader. And, Hillary is a ____ campaigner. Full stop.

Weak candidates typically don't win the popular vote by 3 million, despite having the media, Russian interference and the Comey letter pushing hard against them. Bernie wasn't going to get more votes. He would have gotten mine, but he wouldn't have won.