Russian Interference Poll & Discussion

[Will Hunting]

This isn't a troll thread and it's mainly targeted at those claiming that the Russian interference cited by the Mueller Report had a huge impact on the election.

Poll coming. Discuss.

I personally think the Russian interference probably swung a few votes but wasn't needed by Trump to win.

[Will Hunting]

If you choose huge or moderate (esp. huge), I'd like to hear the logic behind it.

I personally think anyone paying attention to the hacked DNC emails / fake news stories from Russian troll farms was already a Trump supporter or someone who was looking for any reason out there to vote for Trump over Hillary which is why there was almost no impact.

The lifelong Democrat in Youngstown Ohio who voted for Trump did it because he believed in Trump's view on trade, not because of emailgate or pizzagate.

[RandomGuy]

This isn't a troll thread and it's mainly targeted at those claiming that the Russian interference cited by the Mueller Report had a huge impact on the election.

Poll coming. Discuss.

I personally think the Russian interference probably swung a few votes but wasn't needed by Trump to win.

Do the math.

Answer the question: how many votes did Trump win by?

The answer is 77000 people in three states. 38,000 people voting the other way would have meant that Hillary would have won.

As a percentage of the electorate in those states, its fairly small.

[boutons_deux]

The most obvious damage to Hillary was Pootin's giving the Dem emails to his poodle Assange,

who then dribbled out the emails weekly, to affect maximum deflection from Hillary, preventing her messaging from getting traction.

btw, 100K votes in Flint MI WERE NOT COUNTED, so how many votes did Trash win Michigan by?

[Will Hunting]

Do the math.

Answer the question: how many votes did Trump win by?

The answer is 77000 people in three states. 38,000 people voting the other way would have meant that Hillary would have won.

As a percentage of the electorate in those states, its fairly small.

Explain to me how those particular people were influenced by Russians. I concede that it was a close election but that in and if itself isn't proof that Russians changed the outcome.

Use Wisconsin actually. Trump received less votes in that state in 2016 than Romney did in 2012, but he still won because voter turnout for Hillary was so pathetic. How did the Russians cause that?

[Will Hunting]

The most obvious damage to Hillary was Pootin's giving the Dem emails to his poodle Assange,

who then dribbled out the emails weekly, to affect maximum deflection from Hillary, preventing her messaging from getting traction.

btw, 100K votes in Flint MI WERE NOT COUNTED, so how many votes did Trash win Michigan by?

What specific Hillary message wasn't able to get traction and how did the emails contribute to that?

As far as I can tell, her message was "vote for me because Trump is a big meany who said grab em by the pussy!"

[boutons_deux]

turnout for Hillary was so pathetic. How did the Russians cause that?

by targeted trashing of Hillary non-stop, so that her voters were discouraged.

[spurraider21]

the weird aunt on facebook who shares stories of the pope endorsing trump are the people who were going to vote for trump anyway no matter what.

i dont buy that the trolling swung that many. when it comes to the email stuff, i think i may have tainted hillary and the democrats more than they otherwise would have been, which could drive down voter enthusiasm. i think the email investigation being dangled around publicly during the election year was a bigger deal than the russian stuff.

[Will Hunting]

by targeted trashing of Hillary non-stop, so that her voters were discouraged.

Thanks, that's extremely specific. Still waiting for the specific Hillary message that couldn't gain any traction.

Since that would involve Hillary actually taking a real stance and having ideals, I think I'll probably be waiting awhile.

[Will Hunting]

i think the email investigation being dangled around publicly during the election year was a bigger deal than the russian stuff.

Agreed completely.

[Reck]

Do the math.

Answer the question: how many votes did Trump win by?

The answer is 77000 people in three states. 38,000 people voting the other way would have meant that Hillary would have won.

As a percentage of the electorate in those states, its fairly small.

That has to do more with the disenchanted Bernie voters than Russian meddling though.

I do not think Russia manipulated votes or changed minds. Imo, the game changer still remains Comey with his letter.

Mostly those two factors, bitter Bernie supporters and actually this goverment sticking their noses in more than once.

[RandomGuy]

Dataset:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/...&off=0&elect=0

Filter out Clinton states.
Sort by # of votes, margin (smallest vote margin, raw votes first)

To change electoral college count, you need to swing 43 EC votes.
Then simply add.

Michigan-----16
Wisconsin----10
Pennsylvania-20

Total of 46 EC votes, enough to change outcome.

Respective margins:
Michigan-----10704
Wisconsin----22748
Pennsylvania-44292

Total votes: 77744

Six tenths of one percent of the electorate in those three states is Trumps margin of victory.

Odds of a deeply unpopular president eking out another win when his victory was that thin, seem pretty remote to me. Also makes the pundits "OMG he won by so much" pretty thin gruel.

The datasharing with the Russians from the Trump campaign polling data, allowed the systemic and pervasive effort to be targeted, and the evidence we have is that is exactly what happened.

[RandomGuy]

Explain to me how those particular people were influenced by Russians. I concede that it was a close election but that in and if itself isn't proof that Russians changed the outcome.

Use Wisconsin actually. Trump received less votes in that state in 2016 than Romney did in 2012, but he still won because voter turnout for Hillary was so pathetic. How did the Russians cause that?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/polit...sin/index.html

A number of Russian-linked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November, according to four sources with direct knowledge of the situation.

Some of the Russian ads appeared highly sophisticated in their targeting of key demographic groups in areas of the states that turned out to be pivotal, two of the sources said. The ads employed a series of divisive messages aimed at breaking through the clutter of campaign ads online, including promoting anti-Muslim messages, sources said.
It has been unclear until now exactly which regions of the country were targeted by the ads. And while one source said that a large number of ads appeared in areas of the country that were not heavily contested in the elections, some clearly were geared at swaying public opinion in the most heavily contested battlegrounds.
Michigan saw the closest presidential contest in the country -- Trump beat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by about 10,700 votes out of nearly 4.8 million ballots cast. Wisconsin was also one of the tightest states, and Trump won there by only about 22,700 votes. Both states, which Trump carried by less than 1%, were key to his victory in the Electoral College.

Amid Mueller investigation, Russians also tried to hack Wisconsin systems: What we know
https://www.wausaudailyherald.com/st...be/3266933002/

Wisconsin tagged as key state by Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in 2016 briefing with Russian
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ng/3512344002/

------------------------------------------

You don't have to get people exactly to vote for your guy to win. You can win by simply making people not want to vote for your opponent at all, which appears to have happened. Given how incensed Democrats and people who lean that way are, how much Republicans have alienated women, and so forth, I do not see that happening in 2020. Democrats will crawl over broken glass to vote, in this Ted Cruz may have finally found a truth.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more on that, couple of years afterwards:
https://www.wired.com/story/russian-...2016-election/

Swing States
The second part of Kim's research focused on who exactly these unregulated ads—including both standard dark money ads and Russian ads—targeted. She found that voters in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, all states with tight races, were the most targeted. Specifically, voters in Wisconsin were targeted with gun ads about 72 percent more often than the national average. She also found that white voters received 87 percent of all immigration ads.

It makes sense that swing states would be more heavily targeted overall leading up to an election. And Kim didn't analyze the Russians trolls' targets independently from the other unregulated ads, given the small sample size of 19 groups.

[ElNono]

I just don't think it trumps (see what i did there?) Hillary being a horrible candidate and the in bency factor. IMVHO, what swung the election was the rust belt, and that had way more to do with trade/employment than hillary/emails.

[Will Hunting]

That has to do more with the disenchanted Bernie voters than Russian meddling though.

Bull , Hillary not getting the blind support of every single Democratic primary voter isn't some historic, unfathomable act of betrayal that no one before her ever had to face the way she and her supporters like to claim. Primary voters defecting in the general election after the guy they voted for didn't win happens in every election, Hillary is just the first candidate who uses it as an excuse and complains about it incessantly. 25% of the Hillary primary voters in 2008 voted for McCain in the general (meaning that Hillary actually did better with Bernie bros in 2016 than Obama did with Shillary voters in 2008), and Obama managed to win the election in a landslide rather than cry about all of the difficulties he faces because of muh betrayal .

The ty turnout for Hillary was because she was a bad candidate who didn't inspire any sort of excitement among voters. She and her supporters seem to think that her not getting 95+% of the vote from all Sanders primary voters created a huge hole she had to dig out of when getting that level of support would have been unusually high.

Also worth noting that among the people who voted for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general, Obama has an approval rating of 20% and an overwhelming majority of them consider themselves Conservatives. They weren't voters who were ever going to support Hillary.

[ElNono]

Obviously, under the same premise, Trump should not win the rust belt this time around.

[Will Hunting]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/polit...sin/index.html



Amid Mueller investigation, Russians also tried to hack Wisconsin systems: What we know
https://www.wausaudailyherald.com/st...be/3266933002/

Wisconsin tagged as key state by Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in 2016 briefing with Russian
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ng/3512344002/

------------------------------------------

You don't have to get people exactly to vote for your guy to win. You can win by simply making people not want to vote for your opponent at all, which appears to have happened. Given how incensed Democrats and people who lean that way are, how much Republicans have alienated women, and so forth, I do not see that happening in 2020. Democrats will crawl over broken glass to vote, in this Ted Cruz may have finally found a truth.

Sorry but I just don't see how the anti-Muslim stuff is what affected Wisconsin or Michigan. There's no logical explanation for how it was anti-Muslim messaging that caused a bunch of lean-blue voters in Wisconsin to stay home. Trump won those states because free trade was a massive flaw in Hillary's track record and he took advantage of it.

Regarding the rest of your post, the Democrats "repulsed" by Trump are the educated white liberal SJWs who always vote in every election. The fickle voters who the Democrats need (blacks, hispanics, working class whites) aren't going to start showing up in droves because of how much a bunch of liberal arts majors at Berkeley are repulsed by Trump. They're going to have the same lukewarm turnout they always have unless the Dem candidate gets them excited. Maybe Trump loses California by an even larger number because of how "repulsive" he is, but you're delusional if you think the Dems are going to get huge voter turnout no matter who the candidate is.

[Spurs Homer]

If you combine everything the russians did - heck just use muellers desription:

”sweeping & systematic”

it affected the election just enough to get a criminal traitor over an admittedly ty candidate.

lets be fair;

hrc has her flaws and whatnot - but in no ing way is she an actual criminal

-

but

i can absolutely see enough gullible idiots fall for the russian propaganda that hrc ate babies and ran a criminal ring of - whatever

in addition

those russian ads targeted at black voters, the ones targeted at bernie pissed off voters

and more than that-

the timing of the dumps when trump was vulnerable (pussy grabbing tape) - timing within an hour of the story breaking
all had an impact

and almost forgot;

manafort giving polling data and receiving hrc campaign’s stolen actual game plan which the russians hacked -

id conclude that only a trump cult member would deny it had an impact.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks, that's extremely specific. Still waiting for the specific Hillary message that couldn't gain any traction.

Since that would involve Hillary actually taking a real stance and having ideals, I think I'll probably be waiting awhile.

Just getting and holding attention on herself, eg, from the media.

While Pootin/Assange with "voyeuristic" info about the Dem emails had much higher interest.

Agreed, her "messaging" was weak. Dems really thought HRC couldn't lose.

[baseline bum]

IDGAF I'm sick of talking about Russia. If Mueller didn't find conspiracy that's enough for me. I don't want to see the Democrats running their 2020 campaign based on "durr he obstructed justice" since impeachment would just be symbolic crap when there is no chance of conviction in the senate.

[Winehole23]

Impossible to know for sure, but probably negligible.

Bad campaigning and a historically low emphasis on policy by HRC deserve the lion's share of the blame. Comey's last minute announcement couldn't have been calculated to help her either.

[Will Hunting]

IDGAF I'm sick of talking about Russia. If Mueller didn't find conspiracy that's enough for me. I don't want to see the Democrats running their 2020 campaign based on "durr he obstructed justice" since impeachment would just be symbolic crap when there is no chance of conviction in the senate.

Pretty much my view. Mueller clearly left no stone unturned and conducted a very real and serious investigation. If he’s closing the book on Russia the Democratic Party needs to as well.

[spurraider21]

Pretty much my view. Mueller clearly left no stone unturned and conducted a very real and serious investigation. If he’s closing the book on Russia the Democratic Party needs to as well.

he certainly didnt close the book on obstruction. i just think thats a losing political battle... senate will never convict him. after a more careful reading following the release day hoopla, if anything he basically went as far as he legally could on the end, imo

[hater]

Pretty much my view. Mueller clearly left no stone unturned and conducted a very real and serious investigation. If he’s closing the book on Russia the Democratic Party needs to as well.

They will not let it go

Partly because of spite and anger. They hate Trump and are raving.

Also partly because they fear a Trump reelection is imminent so want to keep the kettle warm so to say