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

[MT15]

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.

After Russian trolls target black Americans, one city fights back — The Christian Science Monitor

Black activists point to a long history of people interfering with African Americans’ right to vote. In 2016, that meddling came from overseas.

apple.news

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.

 

[UriUT]

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.

Really, so being historically sophisticated is to go out and vote for a man due to his skin color? So it wasn't historical when they turnout in historic numbers for a white man in Louisiana because they believe in something other than skin color. Or it would be historical if they come out and support Harris even though they disagree with her stance of prosecution. Gotcha.

 

[JimEverett]

Really, so being historically sophisticated is to go out and vote for a man due to his skin color? So it wasn't historical when they turnout in historic numbers for a white man in Louisiana because they believe in something other than skin color. Or it would be historical if they come out and support Harris even though they disagree with her stance of prosecution. Gotcha.

Such a position seems completely oblivious to American history. And seems to lack even cursory exposure to black people.

 

[MT15]

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.

okay, I had a minute to look at the data. Trying to say that the decline isn’t significant because it was still higher than previously ignores a really important component of the data, the trend.

Just as I suspected from reading the article, the percentage of black voters has been on a general upward trend for quite a few elections, and then took a precipitous drop in 2016. It passes the eyeball test as significant. There were sixteen years of increasing participation, followed by a rather dramatic drop. Even Pew seems to deem it as significant since they point to the drop in the headline.

 

[UriUT]

Such a position seems completely oblivious to American history. And seems to lack even cursory exposure to black people.

You don't know me so dont make assumptions about me.

You are saying a historic time to vote matters beyond what they believe. Kamala Harris is a black woman. Historic to support her because she's a woman and she's black. So tell me, why isn't her support higher? Is it me who's treating black sensibilities like a child, "oh go vote for the first black president because he's black and you're black...make history". I view it as a historical moment to vote for a black man. Can you tell my skin color from that? Would you assume that his skin was my reason for my vote? Being historic doesn't make you blind to what you believe, unless you think they aren't capable of that. Another example is ben carson; shouldn't he be popular too? Is it really me who's trivializing how they vote as a group? And would you put the same emphasis on white voters if he runs against a black man? Oh yeah, go vote for McCain because he's white. You conveniently looked at skin color and saw that there was a spike and then a decline back. Therefore, skin color is the reason. Obama was uniquely charismatic and had a very optimistic message. Possibly a reason, yet you dismissively think skin color. Yeah I am the one with a cursory exposure.

And I'm oblivious to history? If your position holds, Obama should have high support from the get go. Why did polling show black voters support clinton strongly over obama? I mean, history should tell me that black voters vote based on skin exclusively, right? It's historic! Could it be multifactorial on why they vote, perhaps?

Tell me again why Doug Jones had a huge turn out by black women that lead to his victory? White man again and high turn out. Was it skin color? Or am I oblivious to history again?

 

[Beach Friends]

Could it be multifactorial on why they vote, perhaps?

Of course, and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

 

[JimEverett]

You don't know me so dont make assumptions about me.

You are saying a historic time to vote matters beyond what they believe. Kamala Harris is a black woman. Historic to support her because she's a woman and she's black. So tell me, why isn't her support higher? Is it me who's treating black sensibilities like a child, "oh go vote for the first black president because he's black and you're black...make history". I view it as a historical moment to vote for a black man. Can you tell my skin color from that? Would you assume that his skin was my reason for my vote? Being historic doesn't make you blind to what you believe, unless you think they aren't capable of that. Another example is ben carson; shouldn't he be popular too? Is it really me who's trivializing how they vote as a group? And would you put the same emphasis on white voters if he runs against a black man? Oh yeah, go vote for McCain because he's white. You conveniently looked at skin color and saw that there was a spike and then a decline back. Therefore, skin color is the reason. Obama was uniquely charismatic and had a very optimistic message. Possibly a reason, yet you dismissively think skin color. Yeah I am the one with a cursory exposure.

And I'm oblivious to history? If your position holds, Obama should have high support from the get go. Why did polling show black voters support clinton strongly over obama? I mean, history should tell me that black voters vote based on skin exclusively, right? It's historic! Could it be multifactorial on why they vote, perhaps?

Tell me again why Doug Jones had a huge turn out by black women that lead to his victory? White man again and high turn out. Was it skin color? Or am I oblivious to history again?

You are comparing the election of a white Democrat in Alabama to the US Senate and a white Democrat to the governor of Lousiana to the election of Obama to the Presidency??? The position is absurd.
Have you ever talked to someone who lived through segregation? Do you think they equate those 3? Do you think there would be extra motivation for a son or daughter of someone who grew up during Jim Crow might be more enthusiastic and likely to vote in 2008 and 2012 then they would in 2016 or 2004?

 

[UriUT]

You are comparing the election of a white Democrat in Alabama to the US Senate and a white Democrat to the governor of Lousiana to the election of Obama to the Presidency??? The position is absurd.
Have you ever talked to someone who lived through segregation? Do you think they equate those 3? Do you think there would be extra motivation for a son or daughter of someone who grew up during Jim Crow might be more enthusiastic and likely to vote in 2008 and 2012 then they would in 2016 or 2004?

Would they be saying the same thing about Ben Carson? Or Kamala Harris? You think skin color is THE reason?

 

[UriUT]

You are comparing the election of a white Democrat in Alabama to the US Senate and a white Democrat to the governor of Lousiana to the election of Obama to the Presidency??? The position is absurd.
Have you ever talked to someone who lived through segregation? Do you think they equate those 3? Do you think there would be extra motivation for a son or daughter of someone who grew up during Jim Crow might be more enthusiastic and likely to vote in 2008 and 2012 then they would in 2016 or 2004?

Also, you are saying that skin color is the motivator for their turnout. Historic turnout in a senatorial and gubernatorial races tells me that skin color isnt' the only reason why they turn out.

 

[JimEverett]

Would they be saying the same thing about Ben Carson? Or Kamala Harris? You think skin color is THE reason?

That is not the issue. You are the one claiming that blacks would be unsophisticated for voting for Obama due the historic nature of his candidacy in 2008 and 2012. That is your point, not mine. You really don't think THAT drove up turnout?
Would you tell a black person that he or she was "unsophisticated" if he or she said they made sure they voted in 2008 and 2016 because Obama was running?

 

[UriUT]

That is not the issue. You are the one claiming that blacks would be unsophisticated for voting for Obama due the historic nature of his candidacy in 2008 and 2012. That is your point, not mine. You really don't think THAT drove up turnout?
Would you tell a black person that he or she was "unsophisticated" if he or she said they made sure they voted in 2008 and 2016 because Obama was running?

Excuse me, but that is your posture. You made the claim that they came out because they are voting for the first black president. I'm making the case that there are more reasons than skin color. Obama's charisma. His message of hope. Really, turn out was much higher across the board. Yet you focus on black voters because of a chance to vote for a black president. Did other voting block came out for a chance to vote for a black president?

 

[JimEverett]

Excuse me, but that is your posture. You made the claim that they came out because they are voting for the first black president. I'm making the case that there are more reasons than skin color. Obama's charisma. His message of hope. Really, turn out was much higher across the board. Yet you focus on black voters because of a chance to vote for a black president. Did other voting block came out for a chance to vote for a black president?

Yes, I did make that claim - and stand by it.
I doubt you would tell a black person or a room full of black people that they were unsophisticated if they made more of an effort to vote for Obama or were more enthusiastic (and thus more likely to turn out) due to the historic nature of his potential election and re-election. I think it is rather insulting - even more so when you compare it to the election of Doug Jones or John Bell Edwards - seriously?

 

[UriUT]

Yes, I did make that claim - and stand by it.
I doubt you would tell a black person or a room full of black people that they were unsophisticated if they made more of an effort to vote for Obama or were more enthusiastic (and thus more likely to turn out) due to the historic nature of his potential election and re-election. I think it is rather insulting - even more so when you compare it to the election of Doug Jones or John Bell Edwards - seriously?

Why would I tell them they are not "sophisticated" if they voted for Obama? I am not the one that believes they voted strictly on skin color. Why would I be ashamed or would even tell them that they aren't sophisticated? On the contrary, I'd be complementary. Would I tell someone who voted for McCain that you voted because he has pale skin. No, I dont' assume that. Maybe a red and blue issue as a matter of fact. And Ben Carson and kamala Harris would not drive the turnout like Obama did. I'm confident on that.

 

[JimEverett]

Why would I tell them they are not "sophisticated" if they voted for Obama? I am not the one that believes they voted strictly on skin color. Why would I be ashamed or would even tell them that they aren't sophisticated? On the contrary, I'd be complementary. Would I tell someone who voted for McCain that you voted because he has pale skin. No, I dont' assume that. Maybe a red and blue issue as a matter of fact. And Ben Carson and kamala Harris would not drive the turnout like Obama did. I'm confident on that.

Exactly. The potential election of John McCain did not carry the same historic significance as Obama - to compare the two strikes me as absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of history. Its as if you are oblivious to the history of black people in the United States.
I asked if you would chastise them as unsophisticated for saying they were more enthusiastic to vote for Obama due to the historic nature of the election. Which is exactly the point - enthusiasm. Higher turnout rates.

 

[UriUT]

I am saying they liked obama who happens to be black. Therefore the enthusiasm. Turn out was high across the board for Obama, not just black voters. Ben Carson, Kamala Harris aren't well viewed for their stances who happens to be black. Historically significant that a man was elected because he is charismatic with a well oiled message of hope. Oh he happens to be black. Why would anyone ignore that historical fact? You are telling me they like him because he's black. Tell you what? What would the turn out be if Ben Carson ran against Clinton? You are telling me that Ben Carson would get the same turnout and votes???? Mind you, Clinton's polling among black voters was very favorable then.

 

[JimEverett]

I am saying they liked obama who happens to be black. Therefore the enthusiasm. Turn out was high across the board for Obama, not just black voters. Ben Carson, Kamala Harris aren't well viewed for their stances who happens to be black. Historically significant that a man was elected because he is charismatic with a well oiled message of hope. Oh he happens to be black. Why would anyone ignore that historical fact? You are telling me they like him because he's black. Tell you what? What would the turn out be if Ben Carson ran against Clinton? You are telling me that Ben Carson would get the same turnout and votes???? Mind you, Clinton's polling among black voters was very favorable then.

We are just saying the same things over and over.

But you writing "Oh he happens to be black" tells me all I need to know: A complete lack of the historical significance of Obama's election and thus an inability to understand why blacks had an increased motivation to go to the polls in 2008 and 2012.
Although I guess I knew when you compared Obama's election to Doug Jones' elecction

 

[UriUT]

So no to the ben carson scenario? Black man. Historically significant if he gets elected vs a favorably polled clinton whose living off of bill's legacy amongst black voters which has since been tarnished by what is not to be spoken (core of this thread). Ben would win you say with the same historical turnout by black voters?

 

[JimEverett]

So no to the ben carson scenario? Black man. Historically significant if he gets elected vs a favorably polled clinton whose living off of bill's legacy amongst black voters which has since been tarnished by what is not to be spoken (core of this thread). Ben would win you say with the same historical turnout by black voters?

What does Ben have to do with it? Ben wasn't on the general election ballot, not was Kamala.
Your position is apparently that in the actual 2008 and 2012 black people who felt an extra motivation to vote due to the historical nature of the election were "unsophisticated." Not sure why Ben Carson should be brought into this debate.

Lets go the other way:

What is more "unsophsiticated":
1. Having an extra motivation to vote when the first black person as major party nominee is running given the 400+ year history of slavery, Jim Crow, economic and politic disenfranchisement, centuries of cultural racism, general treatment as 2d class citizens for most of the country's history, etc.
vs.
2. Less motivated to vote due to $10m spent on Facebook posts
?

 

[MT15]

Jim, please address the reversal of the trend. Your assertions are ignoring a key piece of the data, and the obvious conclusion that Pew made their headline.

Also, once again, the money spent has zero bearing on the type of disinformation described in the article as targeting black voters. That piece of the Russian program of influence was essentially free and not accounted for with the ad purchases.

Or just continue to go around and around with a red herring.

I just don’t get why you refuse to even entertain the notion that what Russia did could have had an effect on peoples’ voting decisions. I mean I get why Trump refuses to acknowledge it, but why do you?