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]

No, he's being particularly evasive because he wants to assert that Obama's skin was the driving force behind the historic turnout. It's rather simple. If that is the case, then the thought experiment is that if you replace Obama with Ben Carson, would the "historic" event turn out the way it did? He knows the answer is that it will not. Ben Carson barely made a dent in South Carolina. If the "historic" moment is to elect the first black american, wouldn't the that driving force lead to historic turnout in the Republican primary? No, the black voters didn't care that skin was the driving force nor want to participate. And at the same time, if that were the case, to elect the first black president, then Obama's poll numbers would start strong and not trail Bidens nor Clinton. Clinton had a strong black support early.

First it was the Trump's "No puppet, you're the puppet" argument, then a few accusations, and finally being evasive. He tried his best not to say the reason wasn't just skin color because apart from Obama's personality, your argument is solid and that his denial...no his thought of the impossibility of any effect from Russian interference falls apart.

 

[The moose]

Wow

Can we not make this thread about white and black rather the Russian interference.

We can talk about black people like Harris all you want but without looking at who that black person represents to the black voter is the problem. Black people see Harris as a person that incarcerated black people for her gain.

The fact that it was her diving board into politics is not lost on black voters.

What people don't want to address it was a truly tiny amount of voters in swing States that changed the election.

To put this into perspective trump only won one of the 10 largest cities in the nation.

So yes by effecting a tiny amount of voters made a difference. We are talking about thousands of votes not millions.

 

[UriUT]

Wow

Can we not make this thread about white and black rather the Russian interference.

We can talk about black people like Harris all you want but without looking at who that black person represents to the black voter is the problem. Black people see Harris as a person that incarcerated black people for her gain.

The fact that it was her diving board into politics is not lost on black voters.

What people don't want to address it was a truly tiny amount of voters in swing States that changed the election.

To put this into perspective trump only won one of the 10 largest cities in the nation.

So yes by effecting a tiny amount of voters made a difference. We are talking about thousands of votes not millions.

Right? We had a 70k voter gap between 3 states. And in particularly, Michigan had a 10-20k difference? And detroit had a huge black voter turnout drop. We dont know the effective degree of the Russian attacks, but we know it existed. A few black lives activists ambushed the Clintons on stage because of some Russian troll effort. If we have folks acting out, how many silently absorbed it? And it's not targeted only at black voters. Heck, we have folks that believe the Ukrainian conspiracy on this board. Oh but that sort of thing no way has any effect, right? We had a person going into a pizzaria with gun in hand asking for the captive children. That is only those acting out. And it's not just social media. Dark campaign money from Russians to our politicians. Some are now pushing these conspiracy as leaders that our own intelligence community says the russians are behind the 2016 attempts.

It's funny. A man got attacked. The question was, I saw u grimace, but did it land? Did it hurt? on a scale of 1-10, how bad was the pain? And oh, there is no way that punch hurts though right? he only exerted a little bit of force that I can see.

 

[JimEverett]

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?

I have said over and over why I don't think Russia had an influence, you really haven't said why they did have one, you just offer mere speculation.

I am not sure why it is a red herring to point out that 2008 and 2012 were the aberrations in black voter turnout. I doubt you can find one source that would say the increase in turnout was not due to the historic nature of Obama's election and re-election. Without that historic nature enthusiasm is expected to decline.

The "trend" you pointed out depends on 2008 and 2012 - which are the anomalies. It is hard to believe that someone would think black enthusiasm would not be higher in 2008 and 2012 than it would in 2016.

 

[Beach Friends]

I have said over and over why I don't think Russia had an influence, you really haven't said why they did have one, you just offer mere speculation.

I am not sure why it is a red herring to point out that 2008 and 2012 were the aberrations in black voter turnout. I doubt you can find one source that would say the increase in turnout was not due to the historic nature of Obama's election and re-election. Without that historic nature enthusiasm is expected to decline.

The "trend" you pointed out depends on 2008 and 2012 - which are the anomalies. It is hard to believe that someone would think black enthusiasm would not be higher in 2008 and 2012 than it would in 2016.

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

 

[JimEverett]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

I think the view being championed here by UriUt and MT15 relies on a view that some people are less sophisticated than they are.

 

[CoolBrees]

How could you possibly know if anyone’s opinion has been changed or not?

 

[coldseat]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

They clearly are. All you have to do is read the reports on their election interference to know they are.

If you had read up on them, you'd know that they are not trying to change your opinions. That's why what they do is so effective. They feed you misinformation and distortions that inflame your already held beliefs to get you to react in a certain way and to cause you to adhere stronger to those beliefs and act more radically. It's very effective, regardless of what side they use it on.

 

[The moose]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

I don't know if you believe that Facebook was made a weapon. It certainly has.

I am more than certain that other Nations know it was. So you think that the UK would be as screwed with out the Cambridge Facebook thing.

So I guess you want to go on record that the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal is fake news?

The state of Michigan was won by 10k votes. Wisconsin by 20k votes.

Look at it this way Michigan was won by half the city of Gretna's population.

Or look at it this way both states were won by less than Tulane's Yulman Stadium capacity!

 

[samiam5211]

I have said over and over why I don't think Russia had an influence, you really haven't said why they did have one, you just offer mere speculation.

I am not sure why it is a red herring to point out that 2008 and 2012 were the aberrations in black voter turnout. I doubt you can find one source that would say the increase in turnout was not due to the historic nature of Obama's election and re-election. Without that historic nature enthusiasm is expected to decline.

The "trend" you pointed out depends on 2008 and 2012 - which are the anomalies. It is hard to believe that someone would think black enthusiasm would not be higher in 2008 and 2012 than it would in 2016.

Do you believe that any ads produced by campaigns or PACs influence elections?

 

[Archies Ghost]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

The premise that Russia's goal is to change votes is incorrect.

The continuing goal is to sow distrust in the elections and discord among Americans.

Getting large swaths of people to repeat the incorrect premise for years and to convince the easily duped into believing this was the goal and that Trump is a Russian asset would be something the Russians could not have rationally expected to happen, yet here we are.

 

[samiam5211]

The premise that Russia's goal is to change votes is incorrect.

The continuing goal is to sow distrust in the elections and discord among Americans.

Getting large swaths of people to repeat the incorrect premise for years and to convince the easily duped into believing this was the goal and that Trump is a Russian asset would be something the Russians could not have rationally expected to happen, yet here we are.

You are correct that their goal is just to have us fighting with eachother.

It is also true that during the 2016 campaign, the Russians decided that the best way to accomplish that was to depress democratic voters and smear Hillary Clinton.

In 2020, they might decide to support the democratic nominee and smear Trump.

 

[Archies Ghost]

You are correct that their goal is just to have us fighting with eachother.

It is also true that during the 2016 campaign, the Russians decided that the best way to accomplish that was to depress democratic voters and smear Hillary Clinton.

In 2020, they might decide to support the democratic nominee and smear Trump.

They almost certainly will attempt to do that as long as Trump appears to be the likely winner.

 

[Beach Friends]

You are correct that their goal is just to have us fighting with eachother.

Well, the joke's on Putin then because we are smarter than that.

 

[Nebaghead]

They almost certainly will attempt to do that as long as Trump appears to be the likely winner.

I can see it now, Trump refusing to leave office because of the Russian conspiracy. just like the jobs reports were fake until he was president.

 

[samiam5211]

Well, the joke's on Putin then because we are smarter than that.

Who is this we you speak of?

He has us caught in a chinese finger trap.

 

[Beach Friends]

Who is this we you speak of?

He has us caught in a chinese finger trap.

We should absolutely be countering Russia, but they are not the real source of our problems IMO.

 

[samiam5211]

We should absolutely be countering Russia, but they are not the real source of our problems IMO.

There is no single source of our problems.

We have many problem from many sources. They each require attention.