Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Kevin Graham]

Dude, I don't think you know how much we agree. Here's the thing: we all knew about that right-wing media ecosystem and how well it was primed to take out Clinton for a very, very long time.

Yes, but based on polling data it really didn't seem to have that much of an effect throughout the campaign. Especially in light of the number of crazy investigations that exonerated her of any wrong doing (i.e. Benghazi). People living in a sane world would think that the Right Wing's attempt to use pseudo-scandals against her would only backfire. The Right Wing's hatred of her for roughly 25 years was going to be a liability but I thought that was offset by her ability to get the black vote. I just don't think enough of them would have turned out for Bernie or anyone else for that matter.

In my view, the demographic that made the real difference wasn't the right wing nut jobs who think Hillary killed Vince Foster and ran a pedophilia ring from a Pizzeria. It was the swing voters who changed their minds in the last two weeks of the election because they weren't sure if Hillary was on the verge of being indicted by the FBI.

She also won the educated vote, but lost big with older, uneducated white folks who fell in love with Trump's racism. I just don't know how you win those people. I've been trying to win those people in my family for decades and it just seems like a lost cause.

[_Themis]

The actual evidence concludes that Russia did not care who won

Really. Then why did they get involved. Why did they hack into HC's e-mails and release them during the election campaign.

[_Kishkumen]

You can’t treat Comey, the Russians, the anti-Clinton cult and the right-wing media ecosystem’s conspiracy theories as though they were unrelated phenomena. They all grew up together. They are entirely interrelated. Take Clinton out of the picture and the same kind of synergy does not exist.

On another note, if you had asked me in the final Obama years how the next election would shake out, I would have said that the Democrats would run Clinton and she would lose. Trump’s candidacy gave me some hope she might pull it off. Clearly that was naïve of me. Little did I reckon the power of crazy the GOP had concocted.

[_Themis]

So Markk are you going to provide us with any of those any examples of Russian interference in past elections?

[_canpakes]

Just give me a few of the Russian hacked e-mails that the press used, of the thousands, there should be some that are more damaging (by the press) than others...

Markk, if your claim is that stories about emails - regardless of email contents - were not damaging to Clinton on the basis of repetitiveness alone, then why did conservative media and Fox News run email stories so frequently, along with baseless speculations and allegations (all negative, of course) of what was ‘about to be discovered’ within them?

You’re not pretending that this was not intended to create and promote a negative characterization of Hillary Clinton, are you?

[_Maxine Waters]

I've been trying to win those people in my family for decades and it just seems like a lost cause.

Did you try calling them racist, deplorable, idiots like you do here? Why wouldn't they be persuaded by that?

[_honorentheos]

The most significant demographic that under performed for Clinton compared to Obama was with men. Whatever influenced them to stay home or vote for Trump, one can't discount that misogyny likely played a role. Specifics like the email scandal that wasn't actually newsworthy become justification for the gut level response some men have to a "bossy woman in a pants suit" telling them what to do.

I don't care what some people think about that. Clinton was clearly the most qualified candidate put forward by the democrats in over a decade. yeah. If it was a. job interview she was the top ranked candidate hands down. All the excuses for why she shouldn't have been the Democrat nominee are that, excuses. for what? I wonder.

[_subgenius]

The most significant demographic that under performed for Clinton compared to Obama was with men. Whatever influenced them to stay home or vote for Trump, one can't discount that misogyny likely played a role.

nah, one can certainly discount misogyny. Elected females has been trending for quite some time. The Clinton brand is to blame, Hillary Clinton lost because of who she was and what she represented, her gender is a minor point...its like claiming that Obama only won because he was black.

Specifics like the email scandal that wasn't actually newsworthy become justification for the gut level response some men have to a "bossy woman in a pants suit" telling them what to do.

This feeble attempt at a stereotype is essentially refuted by reality. On the one hand posts like yours claim that mysognists are only members of the Republican party, so a male version of Hillary Clinton would not have gotten any votes any way...so, if Hillary Clinton under-performed among men, it was the men of the Democratic party...it was defectors. The previous 8 years had already motivated Republicans well before Hillary Clinton and the DNC hoodwinked Sanders out of the picture.

I don't care what some people think about that. Clinton was clearly the most qualified candidate put forward by the democrats in over a decade.

Again, reality contradicts your post's assertion. The Clintons represent the pinnacle of an old politic that is dead now...ergo th lack of a "new solution" by the DNC. Sanders was a victim of this old politic's last stand...but alas, it was still a last stand. Hillary Clinton was more qualified, perhaps in 2000, but not 2016. The Clinton style and method of politic is dead.

yeah. If it was a. job interview she was the top ranked candidate hands down. All the excuses for why she shouldn't have been the Democrat nominee are that, excuses. for what? I wonder.

There are no excuses, there are solid reasons...for example, she did not represent the will of the primary voters....ergo the rigged nomination....the "most qualified" is something that is determined at the ballot box...its kind of the most fundamental principle in a free election.
There is no reasonable argument based on evidence that concludes with her being the best Democrat of 2016...in fact, the biggest qualification and the most popular rallying point for her support was her genitalia. Entitlement via gender ain't a thing when running for President.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't care what some people think about that. Clinton was clearly the most qualified candidate put forward by the democrats in over a decade. yeah. If it was a. job interview she was the top ranked candidate hands down.

I'm curious what you're basing this on. What made her the most qualified?

Just because you've spent time in the White House doesn't make you qualified to be president. Otherwise, Drumpf is now qualified (and we know damn well that ain't true). Just because you're deeply connected within your party doesn't make you qualified.

Yes, I heard Obama talking about how much more qualified Hillary was than everyone else, but it became a talking point with not so much to really back it up. Experience does not magically endow someone with qualifications, except for the qualification of experience, and there were plenty of people in the race with experience.

All the excuses for why she shouldn't have been the Democrat nominee are that, excuses. for what? I wonder.

I don't have any doubt that misogyny played a role, but you cannot pin that on every person who didn't think she was a great candidate (as has already been talked about in this thread).

[_subgenius]

The Mueller indictments would indicate otherwise..

CFR that they wanted Trump to be elected.
because the indictment clearly notes that Russia most wanted to "undermine" Hillary Clinton, and in fact Russia was trying to "help Sanders" (and note Sanders is currently struggling to explain his 2016 campaign's awareness of the Russian bots...hmm, bots undermining Hillary Clinton but propping up Bern...why did he not say anything? i wonder
The Clinton campaign itself denied receiving information from Sanders' campaign on the issue, telling Politico that no one from Sanders’ campaign reached out. )


quote -

"Russians nationals engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump."
(i highly recommend you actually read the indictment you so staunchly claim "sez stuff").

The indication is akin to my assertion that they did not care who won, though they clearly cared about who did not win....so, supporting Sanders and Trump is a far cry from your narrow and bias proclamation that it was about getting Trump elected....clearly they just did not want Hillary Clinton nominated. Again, the motive was hair-fire and the appearance of meddling was enough to render liberals and democrats with an ashy scalp and smoldering bangs.