What did the Russians actually do in 2016? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    17,984
    Reaction score
    24,887
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    I’ve seen the Russian influence on the 2016 election being dismissed and downplayed by our Conservatives on this board. Then I saw this today. It’s a really good look at the types of things they were doing and how they affected voting patterns.



    Relevant quote:


    “About two-thirds of Russian activity on Facebook and other social media platforms seeking to influence the 2016 election was aimed at black Americans, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. And at least one of the Moscow-linked trolls was focusing on Charlotte.

    The internet campaign appeared designed to convince African Americans, who traditionally favor Democrat candidates, that it was not worth voting – at least not for Hillary Clinton. It was built on false messages such as “HILLARY RECEIVED $20,000 DONATION FROM KKK FOR HER CAMPAIGN.”

    It is impossible to gauge the campaign’s precise impact. But in 2016, African American voter turnout was 7% lower than in 2012, the largest such drop on record. It was even steeper in North Carolina, one of the six swing states in which President Donald Trump eked out narrow victories en route to winning the Electoral College.”

    I think it’s important for everyone to realize what was done in 2016 and not speak dismissively about it. In 2016 the Russians may have enabled Trump to win, but they could decide tomorrow that a Sanders victory or a Warren victory would better suit their goals of dividing the country and causing turmoil. And the lack of due diligence from the current Administration will have been largely responsible.

    I wish our elected representatives, particularly in the Senate, would quit being afraid of offending Trump’s ego and get serious about what the Russians did. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however, when they are following Trump’s lead and parroting Russian intelligence disinformation.
     
    First of all, I don’t think we have a clue how much money was spent. When you pay people to pretend to be activists and foment unrest from Russia, I don’t think that cost has been captured. It‘s a false and odd way to try to discredit something like this.

    Read the quote. 2016 brought the highest drop in black voter participation on record. There were undoubtedly multiple factors, Republican voter suppression efforts among them. But you cannot just dismiss this highly targeted effort at smearing Clinton in the eyes of black voters as ineffective. Read the article, they were highly effective in fanning the flames in various cities. Leaders on both sides felt the effects.

    Or alternatively just follow along with the narrative that you are currently following. Head firmly in sand, just deny, deny, deny.
    It is typical left arrogance to "group" voters into herds of unthinking beings of similar appearance and then declare they were influenced by external forces they were powerless to control.

    Russia and Republican voter suppression are the culprits.

    How about 8 years of disappointing results followed by promises of more of the same from the most insincere, calculating and dismissive candidate in the the history of politics?


    And don't forget, Hillary won. It was that pesky Russia plot from 225 years ago that spoiled it, the Electoral college.

    Yes, Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign. The idea that it had any sort of impact on turnout or votes is a bit ludicrous.

    It has had an amazing impact in perpetuating the idea that the results of our elections are somehow to be disregarded.

    That is what Russia actually wants.

    To sow distrust in the American political system.

    Vladimir thanks you for your service.
     
    It is typical left arrogance to "group" voters into herds of unthinking beings of similar appearance and then declare they were influenced by external forces they were powerless to control.

    Russia and Republican voter suppression are the culprits.

    How about 8 years of disappointing results followed by promises of more of the same from the most insincere, calculating and dismissive candidate in the the history of politics?


    And don't forget, Hillary won. It was that pesky Russia plot from 225 years ago that spoiled it, the Electoral college.

    Yes, Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign. The idea that it had any sort of impact on turnout or votes is a bit ludicrous.

    It has had an amazing impact in perpetuating the idea that the results of our elections are somehow to be disregarded.

    That is what Russia actually wants.

    To sow distrust in the American political system.

    Vladimir thanks you for your service.
    How is it ludicrous especially since the data in the article spells out - with data - how it probably happened
     
    It is typical left arrogance to "group" voters into herds of unthinking beings of similar appearance and then declare they were influenced by external forces they were powerless to control.

    Russia and Republican voter suppression are the culprits.

    How about 8 years of disappointing results followed by promises of more of the same from the most insincere, calculating and dismissive candidate in the the history of politics?


    And don't forget, Hillary won. It was that pesky Russia plot from 225 years ago that spoiled it, the Electoral college.

    Yes, Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign. The idea that it had any sort of impact on turnout or votes is a bit ludicrous.

    It has had an amazing impact in perpetuating the idea that the results of our elections are somehow to be disregarded.

    That is what Russia actually wants.

    To sow distrust in the American political system.

    Vladimir thanks you for your service.
    How is it ludicrous especially since the data in the article spells out - with data - how it probably happened
     
    I’ve seen the Russian influence on the 2016 election being dismissed and downplayed by our Conservatives on this board. Then I saw this today. It’s a really good look at the types of things they were doing and how they affected voting patterns.



    Relevant quote:


    “About two-thirds of Russian activity on Facebook and other social media platforms seeking to influence the 2016 election was aimed at black Americans, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. And at least one of the Moscow-linked trolls was focusing on Charlotte.

    The internet campaign appeared designed to convince African Americans, who traditionally favor Democrat candidates, that it was not worth voting – at least not for Hillary Clinton. It was built on false messages such as “HILLARY RECEIVED $20,000 DONATION FROM KKK FOR HER CAMPAIGN.”

    It is impossible to gauge the campaign’s precise impact. But in 2016, African American voter turnout was 7% lower than in 2012, the largest such drop on record. It was even steeper in North Carolina, one of the six swing states in which President Donald Trump eked out narrow victories en route to winning the Electoral College.”

    I think it’s important for everyone to realize what was done in 2016 and not speak dismissively about it. In 2016 the Russians may have enabled Trump to win, but they could decide tomorrow that a Sanders victory or a Warren victory would better suit their goals of dividing the country and causing turmoil. And the lack of due diligence from the current Administration will have been largely responsible.

    I wish our elected representatives, particularly in the Senate, would quit being afraid of offending Trump’s ego and get serious about what the Russians did. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however, when they are following Trump’s lead and parroting Russian intelligence disinformation.

    Right the inaction to protect our next election or any retaliatory acts is baffling. And to quibble about how much was spent is simple attempts to distract and muddy the water. Does it matter if Russia sent 3 gunmen to attack our malls vs sending a nuclear bomb? Both are acts of war...and we know they actively interfered in our elections. Defending Russia's action is short sighted political gains for the long term health of our republic.

    And here's the anecdotal evidence on how effective the Russian propaganda machine was. They routinely targeted the Black Lives Matter movement. So to the Clinton's surprise, who was viewed as very popular with black voters, was attacked for their stance on Bill's crime bill by some Black Lives Matter activists. Yes, they may have paid some Russian troll farmer 30 cents an hour (exaggeration on my part), but the disruption and attention the Clinton's received on their perceived damage to the black community far outweighs the 30 cents.

     
    Yea man, I agree. The other side are the bad guys.
    Another issue is the Andy Ngo's and Jussie Smollett's of the world, who either intentionally place themselves in position for negative actions to be perpetrated against them, or outright fake the negative actions for personal gain.

    I guess we would never be able to eliminate opportunists from our society completely, but it would be nice if we could stop doing them the attention that they're seeking or financial benefit they end up reaping somehow.
     
    Another issue is the Andy Ngo's and Jussie Smollett's of the world, who either intentionally place themselves in position for negative actions to be perpetrated against them, or outright fake the negative actions for personal gain.

    I guess we would never be able to eliminate opportunists from our society completely, but it would be nice if we could stop doing them the attention that they're seeking or financial benefit they end up reaping somehow.

    Yea, social media has only worsened our cultural craving for celebrity. Now anyone can get 15 minutes of fame when everyone can know everything anyone else ever does across the country.

    The news doesn’t cover the usual, so we end up thinking the crazy is way more pervasive than it really is.

    Makes it easier for bad actors to manipulate us into otherising each other.
     
    First of all, I don’t think we have a clue how much money was spent. When you pay people to pretend to be activists and foment unrest from Russia, I don’t think that cost has been captured. It‘s a false and odd way to try to discredit something like this.

    Read the quote. 2016 brought the highest drop in black voter participation on record. There were undoubtedly multiple factors, Republican voter suppression efforts among them. But you cannot just dismiss this highly targeted effort at smearing Clinton in the eyes of black voters as ineffective. Read the article, they were highly effective in fanning the flames in various cities. Leaders on both sides felt the effects.

    Or alternatively just follow along with the narrative that you are currently following. Head firmly in sand, just deny, deny, deny.

    The idea that you either think Russia had far-reaching effects on American attitudes or you are burying your head in the sand is silly. That is not the either/or.

    And we do have a good idea on how much Russia spent - according to the Mueller investigation it reached a high of $1.25 million per month in September, 2016. The idea that that sum and even method could have a significant effect on the election compared to the exponentially higher amount spent by Clinton and the Democrats defy all logic.

    As far as the black turnout: did anyone think turnout would be as high as it was when the first black President was running?
    The black turnout rate in 2008 was roughly 65%, in 2012 it increased to roughly 66% and then fell to 59.6%.
    But, that 59.6 was pretty much in line with black turnout in 2004, when there was not an historically significant black candidate at the top of the ticket. The 2016 turnout was higher than in 2000, roughly equal with 1996 and higher than 1992. Do you really think that the drop in 2016 was due to Russian posts on Facebook?


     
    I want to apologize for the head in the sand comment, Jim, it wasn‘t warranted.

    It was never presented as an either / or dichotomy, but I do realize that characterizing it as such makes it easier to criticize and dismiss. My point was that the money figures don’t capture the type of influence operation described in the article. The money figures pertain to ads purchased on social media, IIRC, while the influence of paid trolls is not capturable. The only cost is whatever Putin pays his trolls, they utilize the same social networks that Americans do. They present themselves as American activists, and it has been found that they do influence public perception, as well as sometimes actions. It’s hard to quantify, but well worth the effort to make sure these types of deceptive accounts are identified. It’s a known fact that they play both sides against each other. So while some are posing as black activists and posting incendiary talk, others are quoting such talk to far right folks and using their “fake” anger to sow distrust and animosity as well as trying to spur them into action.

    As for the turnout, I haven’t time to research that right this minute. But what I suspect is being referred to is a general upward trend, over quite a few years, that suddenly took a pretty significant dip.
     
    After the past 3 years of pronouncements from the Democrats on this topic and since the evidence is irrefutable in this hypothetical scenario, I would expect the new Democrat president-elect to concede to the Republican candidate.

    Keep going.
    What happens next? You'd have a huge chunk of America incensed that their candidate isn't being sworn in. How quickly would the next election happen and do you have any confidence at all that effective measures would be taken to prevent it from happening again.
    Also, as we are currently living, it's impossible to say if the Russian interference tipped the scales or if the candidate would have won anyway.
    Can you see how the path to 3rd world chaos is only 2 or 3 elections long?
     
    It is typical left arrogance to "group" voters into herds of unthinking beings of similar appearance and then declare they were influenced by external forces they were powerless to control.

    Russia and Republican voter suppression are the culprits.

    How about 8 years of disappointing results followed by promises of more of the same from the most insincere, calculating and dismissive candidate in the the history of politics?


    And don't forget, Hillary won. It was that pesky Russia plot from 225 years ago that spoiled it, the Electoral college.

    Yes, Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign. The idea that it had any sort of impact on turnout or votes is a bit ludicrous.

    It has had an amazing impact in perpetuating the idea that the results of our elections are somehow to be disregarded.

    That is what Russia actually wants.

    To sow distrust in the American political system.

    Vladimir thanks you for your service.

    Since this screed appears to be a response to me, let’s take a look.

    1. “Left arrogance” to lump voters together. The Russians lumped voters together and targeted them. I am merely calling attention to their actions. They continue to do so, presumably. They are targeting both white, black, left and right. They seem to have found fertile ground here.

    2. No claim was made that there is a single or even merely two “culprits“. American society is a complex organism with a lot of moving parts. But it’s very foolish to downplay and ignore Russia’s (or rather Putin’s) efforts, IMO.

    3. Nobody said that Clinton won. Geesh, enough straw here for the three pigs.

    4. The idea that you can imperiously dismiss the Russian tactics as having exactly zero effect on turnout or how voters made up their minds is what is ludicrous, IMO. This is something that simply cannot be known.

    5. More straw: nobody said the results of our elections are to be discarded, well, except for you in a hypothetical scenario. But I think you were joking.

    6. Yes, finally we agree! What I don’t get is why you think just ignoring and downplaying the efforts is an effective tactic to counteract his actions. Care to explain?
     
    The idea that you either think Russia had far-reaching effects on American attitudes or you are burying your head in the sand is silly. That is not the either/or.

    And we do have a good idea on how much Russia spent - according to the Mueller investigation it reached a high of $1.25 million per month in September, 2016. The idea that that sum and even method could have a significant effect on the election compared to the exponentially higher amount spent by Clinton and the Democrats defy all logic.

    As far as the black turnout: did anyone think turnout would be as high as it was when the first black President was running?
    The black turnout rate in 2008 was roughly 65%, in 2012 it increased to roughly 66% and then fell to 59.6%.
    But, that 59.6 was pretty much in line with black turnout in 2004, when there was not an historically significant black candidate at the top of the ticket. The 2016 turnout was higher than in 2000, roughly equal with 1996 and higher than 1992. Do you really think that the drop in 2016 was due to Russian posts on Facebook?



    I'm curious, are you implying that black voters, particularly the delta, are not sophisticated enough to vote on the issues but rather the skin color of Obama? I certainly didn't see that in the Pew report.
     
    I'm curious, are you implying that black voters, particularly the delta, are not sophisticated enough to vote on the issues but rather the skin color of Obama?

    He didn't suggest that and I think you know that.

    It's not hard to understand that black voters would have additional motivation to go out and support the first black POTUS ever. It would be similar to when Catholic voters, and/or voters of Irish descent, had the opportunity to vote for JFK.
     
    He didn't suggest that and I think you know that.

    It's not hard to understand that black voters would have additional motivation to go out and support the first black POTUS ever. It would be similar to when Catholic voters, and/or voters of Irish descent, had the opportunity to vote for JFK.

    Does the turnout for bel edwards in New Orleans tell you that skin may not be important as you think, but rather Obama's message of change and hope resonates with them? Clinton at one point had equal or more black voter support. Let's flip it. You're gonna tell me a white man who's running against a black candidate will have white voters with that extra juice to come out and vote for that white man? What does that tell you about those voters?
     
    Does the turnout for bel edwards in New Orleans tell you that skin may not be important as you think, but rather Obama's message of change and hope resonates with them? Clinton at one point had equal or more black voter support. Let's flip it. You're gonna tell me a white man who's running against a black candidate will have white voters with that extra juice to come out and vote for that white man? What does that tell you about those voters?

    You can spend the rest of the afternoon pretending that you don't understand why black voters would have additional motivation to get out and vote for man who was to become the first black POTUS if you like. I have already spent more time than I think is necessary to explain what I believe any reasonable person already knows.
     
    You can spend the rest of the afternoon pretending that you don't understand why black voters would have additional motivation to get out and vote for man who was to become the first black POTUS if you like. I have already spent more time than I think is necessary to explain what I believe any reasonable person already knows.

    Sure sure. So when turnout for other sections of the voting block for obama declined in 2016, we instantly attributed that to the skin color. No, it was other factors from Clinton's likeability to russian trolls. But when it's the black population, it's the skin color. The implicit accusations are there whether you choose to think about it or not. Deny that turnout for a white man in New Orleans was historically high.
     
    Sure sure. So when turnout for other sections of the voting block for obama declined in 2016, we instantly attributed that to the skin color. No, it was other factors from Clinton's likeability to russian trolls. But when it's the black population, it's the skin color. The implicit accusations are there whether you choose to think about it or not. Deny that turnout for a white man in New Orleans was historically high.
    LOL.

    When you say the turnout declined in 2016 let us be clear that the "decline" was back to levels that were normal pre-2008. In fact, 2016 turnout was the second or third highest turnout for blacks sine at least 1988 (perhaps even before that, I don't see the data) if you do not include the first-ever major party candidate that was black and the first-ever black President being on the ballot.
     
    LOL.

    When you say the turnout declined in 2016 let us be clear that the "decline" was back to levels that were normal pre-2008. In fact, 2016 turnout was the second or third highest turnout for blacks sine at least 1988 (perhaps even before that, I don't see the data) if you do not include the first-ever major party candidate that was black and the first-ever black President being on the ballot.

    Yes there's no denying there was a decline. You put your stamp on it by attributing it to skin color. So again, I ask, could it be that they see hope that their view of systematic bias against them apart from skin color? Or how about Obama's personality? Do you ask that other sections of Obama's voting block went back to pre-2008? Was it also skin color? Again, Clinton had higher polling numbers than Obama at one point; those who supported clinton or biden viewed that their leadership quality was more favorable than Obama. Ask you this, why isn't harris or booker galvanizing the same support? Harris has dark skin and is hated for her past prosecutions. LOL. that is exactly it. Your casual dismissal of their sensibilities. Neither you nor I nor that poll asked them why they didn't turn out as much as before. You made that assumption. It can be very well that you are right. In which case, your accusation is that they are, to use a softer word, not sophisticated.
     
    Yes there's no denying there was a decline. You put your stamp on it by attributing it to skin color. So again, I ask, could it be that they see hope that their view of systematic bias against them apart from skin color? Or how about Obama's personality? Do you ask that other sections of Obama's voting block went back to pre-2008? Was it also skin color? Again, Clinton had higher polling numbers than Obama at one point; those who supported clinton or biden viewed that their leadership quality was more favorable than Obama. Ask you this, why isn't harris or booker galvanizing the same support? Harris has dark skin and is hated for her past prosecutions. LOL. that is exactly it. Your casual dismissal of their sensibilities. Neither you nor I nor that poll asked them why they didn't turn out as much as before. You made that assumption. It can be very well that you are right. In which case, your accusation is that they are, to use a softer word, not sophisticated.
    I think your position is the one that makes blacks appear unsophisticated: as in completely oblivious to the historic nature of the 2008 and 2012 elections. The idea that black Americans would be so oblivious to history as to be equally motivated to go out and vote in 2016 vs. 2008 and 2012 really is a view that makes millions of people look unsophisticated if not outright fools.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom