Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?

LV426 said:
So why did Russia succeed?

Well, they used social media, which is low-cost, and because of what social media is, was able to get Americans to do the dirty work of disseminating or "sharing" propaganda they generated.

-and-

They also knew who to target because they were getting polling data from Manafort. So they knew what voters to go for and how to get them.

You said yourself that propaganda works among "a small percentage of voters". Well, that's all they had to do in order to rig the election for Trump; disseminate their propaganda widely enough in those key states to manipulate "a small percentage of voters" to vote for Trump...and it worked! Trump won those three states by "a small percentage of voters".

All they had to do was flip about 100,000 voters across three states, and that's why they directed their propaganda efforts in those states and not in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts.

All of this is detailed in Volume I of Mueller's report that you still haven't read.

So lazy.
Click to expand...

spot on


but it was less than 80,000 votes
 
LV426 said:
So why did Russia succeed?
Click to expand...

We don't know that they did. The election results could have been the same without any Russian involvement. Maybe the Democratic propaganda for Clinton was more successful since she won a plurality of the popular votes.

The swing states like WI voted for Trump because of reduced turnout about loyal Democratic voters like blacks. If black turnout in those states had equaled Obama she would have won.

So maybe if Russian propaganda was effective it worked better on the Democrats to get them to stay home. But we have no clue what determined how most voted. It will be a while before the National Election Studies publish their research.
 
Flash said:
We don't know that they did.
Click to expand...

Yes we do, because Trump won by "a small percentage of voters" across three states Russia was targeting with its propaganda thanks to Paul Manafort and Rick Gates sharing that data with Kilmnik.

You are the one who said propaganda works on "a small percentage of voters".

Well, because of the polling data they got from Manafort, Russia knew they only needed to target voters in those states with their campaign, knowing it would be effective among "a small percentage of voters" needed to flip enough votes for Trump.

You are the one who said propaganda works on "a small percentage of voters"...well, Trump won MI, PA, WI by "a small percentage of voters" and those were the states Russia targeted.

You should really read Mueller's Report.
 
Flash said:
Maybe the Democratic propaganda for Clinton was more successful since she won a plurality of the popular votes. .
Click to expand...

Sophistry is a bad look on you. It's a bad look on anyone, but it looks particularly shitty on you.

Clinton won the election by 3 million votes, but Trump won those three states Russia was targeting with their propaganda. Propaganda you admit works on "a small percentage of voters."

So if you say it works "on a small percentage of voters", you must conclude that it worked on those voters in those three states Russia targeted since Trump won by "a small percentage of voters".
 
Flash said:
The swing states like WI voted for Trump because of reduced turnout about loyal Democratic voters like blacks. If black turnout in those states had equaled Obama she would have won.
Click to expand...

If Russia hadn't targeted those states with propaganda that was effective at swaying "a small percentage of voters", Clinton would have won.

So you're in quite the rhetorical pickle here; on the one hand, you say propaganda is effective at swaying "a small percentage of voters", but on the other hand, you're saying that propaganda didn't affect "a small percentage of voters" in MI, WI, and PA that gave Trump his "small percentage" margin.

So both things can't be true, otherwise it's a logical fallacy.

If you say propaganda is effective at swaying the minds of " a small percentage of voters", then it was effective at swaying "a small percentage of voters" in three states that gave Trump his margins.

You fucked yourself rhetorically on this thread.
 
Flash said:
So maybe if Russian propaganda was effective it worked better on the Democrats to get them to stay home.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought this up, because that was Russia's tactic LAST YEAR with the #Walkaway bullshit.

Remember?

You should, since I think you shared that hashtag on these boards, or at least echoed the themes.

Russia tried to depress Democratic turnout last year by pushing that #Walkaway and #Blexit crap. Crap many Conservatives on these boards disseminated. The reason it didn't work is simply because liberals are more savvy than Conservatives. So liberals weren't conned by #Blexit or #Walkaway. That's why Russian propaganda didn't really work when it came to manipulating liberals; we're just smarter people who can sniff out scams.

You're not one of those people with good judgment or instincts.

In fact, you were buying into the propaganda that liberals yelling at Conservatives in public places was going to backlash against the Democrats in November. In fact, I remember having that very debate with you. You were wrong. SOOOOOOOOO wrong. Being mean to Conservatives didn't depress turnout. In fact, Democrats got record midterm turnout.

So the #Walkaway didn't work. But that didn't stop you from buying into that propaganda, as you so easily do.
 
Flash said:
But we have no clue what determined how most voted.
Click to expand...

Sure we do! You're the one who said it yourself; propaganda works "on a small percentage of voters".

Trump's margins were "a small percentage of voters", and those margins were in states Russia targeted thanks to the polling data they got from Manafort and Gates.

So why are you saying you have no clue? You gave yourself a clue, dipshit.
 
LV426 said:
So why did Russia succeed?

Well, they used social media, which is low-cost, and because of what social media is, was able to get Americans to do the dirty work of disseminating or "sharing" propaganda they generated.

-and-

They also knew who to target because they were getting polling data from Manafort. So they knew what voters to go for and how to get them.

You said yourself that propaganda works among "a small percentage of voters". Well, that's all they had to do in order to rig the election for Trump; disseminate their propaganda widely enough in those key states to manipulate "a small percentage of voters" to vote for Trump...and it worked! Trump won those three states by "a small percentage of voters".

All they had to do was flip about 100,000 voters across three states, and that's why they directed their propaganda efforts in those states and not in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts.

All of this is detailed in Volume I of Mueller's report that you still haven't read.

So lazy.
Click to expand...

The president is not elected by popular vote.
 
LV426 said:
So why did Russia succeed?

Well, they used social media, which is low-cost, and because of what social media is, was able to get Americans to do the dirty work of disseminating or "sharing" propaganda they generated.

-and-

They also knew who to target because they were getting polling data from Manafort. So they knew what voters to go for and how to get them.

You said yourself that propaganda works among "a small percentage of voters". Well, that's all they had to do in order to rig the election for Trump; disseminate their propaganda widely enough in those key states to manipulate "a small percentage of voters" to vote for Trump...and it worked! Trump won those three states by "a small percentage of voters".

All they had to do was flip about 100,000 voters across three states, and that's why they directed their propaganda efforts in those states and not in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts.

All of this is detailed in Volume I of Mueller's report that you still haven't read.

So lazy.
Click to expand...

First of all I have to say, "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!!"

Secondly I have to say that "The Russian's" especially when they were "Soviets" have been meddling in elections all over the world since the 1920's. Of course you leftist freaks didn't have a problem with them when they were called Soviets.

Finally the Russians did succeed in their "meddling" because the goal was to cause American Voters to lose confidence in the American Electoral System. They were aided in this by people like you. But more so they were aided by the Democrats and their willing lap dogs in the Modern Mass Media with a non-stop barrage of lies and false charges against Donald Trump and his Campaign.


The the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC used the law firm Perkins Cole to launder money to Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson. They used ex-British spook Christoper Steele who had been an FBI informant to make contact with, wait a minute, Russian contacts who fed him disinformation which he then took to the FBI and DOJ under Barack Hussein Obama! The Obama Justice department then used that info called the "Dossier" to get FISA Court warrants to spy on members of Trump's 2016 campaign.

The FBI, under Obama, used an asset named Joseph Mifsud who fed info to George Papadopoulos, and then used that to justify the surveillance of Papadopoulos. Mifsud acknowledged he introduced Papadopoulos to a contact in Russia, whom he identified as Dr. Ivan N. Timofeev, who he described as “a director of a think tank in Moscow with strong links with a number of U.S. institutions.” The Hill.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...-told-fbi-about-trump-russia-and-papadopoulos

Players in this scandal are James Comey, FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, Deputy Dir under Comey, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page, Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS and her husband Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. And a number of other corrupt players at the DOJ and FBI under Obama.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question, she said at another point..." The Hill
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...t-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller
 
I want to remind you leftist idiots one more time that back in 2012 Obama and the leftist media mocked then Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney when he said that Russia was the greatest threat to the USA at that time.
 
Anyone remember this!


At 0:18

Obama said, "This is my last election, after the election I'll have more flexibility."
Medvedev said, "Yes yes I understand, I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
 
Buck Tucker said:
TROLLISH SPITTLE
Click to expand...

Why is it that Conservatives have to create myriad ID's anyway?

Two reasons:

1) They are desperate to establish credibility they don't have or burned through under old IDs.
2) They need to create a sense that there's more broad support for their beliefs than there actually is.
 
Buck Tucker said:
I want to remind you leftist idiots one more time that back in 2012 Obama and the leftist media mocked then Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney when he said that Russia was the greatest threat to the USA at that time.
Click to expand...

To pretend Romney was prescient enough to predict Russian asymmetrical digital warfare, and not posturing over gross military strength like the 80's, is a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top