4 ms·

This is how democracy dies. When we, as a society, permit the election outcome to be determined by the executive leadership of a handful of tech companies. "Ru

This is how democracy dies. When we, as a society, permit the election outcome to be determined by the executive leadership of a handful of tech companies. "Russia" has absolutely no power compared to the implications of this

kyrra 7y ago
Look how much money Bloomberg had spent and isn't doing all that great in national polls. Also look at the 2016 election, Hilary spent almost double what Trump spent and still lost. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ Money doesn't mean automatic votes unless people agree with your message at least some. Also, Russia had very little impact in 2016 election (if you have proof otherwise, I'd love to see it). It did make much of the media and Washington go crazy for a couple years, but that seemed just an amplification of Russia's attempt to mess with things.
- wpietri 7y ago
  In contrast, look at how far along Bloomberg would be if he was not able to spend any of his own money. I'd say his money has had quite an effect. The 2016 election margin was very slim. A great number of factors could plausibly have made the difference. Russian social media manipulation is likely within that margin. Russia's hack of the DNC is definitely within that margin.
  - kyrra 7y ago
    My money is on the email hack having the biggest impact. Especially when the FBI reopened the email server investigation right before the election. I don't think the contents of the hack had much impact, but the act of it and the investigation had one.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The Bloomberg example demonstrates @kyrra’s point. Bloomberg is moving up rapidly in the polls because Democrats are desperately looking for a “not Bernie” candidate. Bloomberg is using money to get his message out there. But money alone wouldn’t have done it. Tom Steyer spent $127 million of his own money and couldn’t buy any support. Clinton spent twice as much on her campaign, and adding in pro-Clinton PACs spending on her behalf was three times as much. If money was as important as people say, it should never have been close enough for Russian media manipulation to matter.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      I don't think anybody is saying that money alone is enough. For one thing, just like any ad campaign, you have to spend it well. But if you really believe money isn't very important, you'll have to explain why successful candidates all spend a great deal of time raising money. And then keep on doing so despite the clear advantages of incumbency.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
krick 7y ago
Ah, come on. "Democracy" was always like that. "Democracy" is a meme, and always has been, maybe except to the times when all the quorum could fit on Agora and voice their opinions.
standardUser 7y ago
Replace "tech companies" with "media companies" if you want to understand American politics pre-2016.
- vinniejames 7y ago
  At least now we have some voices who dont originate from tech or media in the mix, as opposed to almost none

kyrra 7y ago

Look how much money Bloomberg had spent and isn't doing all that great in national polls. Also look at the 2016 election, Hilary spent almost double what Trump spent and still lost. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ Money doesn't mean automatic votes unless people agree with your message at least some. Also, Russia had very little impact in 2016 election (if you have proof otherwise, I'd love to see it). It did make much of the media and Washington go crazy for a couple years, but that seemed just an amplification of Russia's attempt to mess with things.

wpietri 7y ago
In contrast, look at how far along Bloomberg would be if he was not able to spend any of his own money. I'd say his money has had quite an effect. The 2016 election margin was very slim. A great number of factors could plausibly have made the difference. Russian social media manipulation is likely within that margin. Russia's hack of the DNC is definitely within that margin.
- kyrra 7y ago
  My money is on the email hack having the biggest impact. Especially when the FBI reopened the email server investigation right before the election. I don't think the contents of the hack had much impact, but the act of it and the investigation had one.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The Bloomberg example demonstrates @kyrra’s point. Bloomberg is moving up rapidly in the polls because Democrats are desperately looking for a “not Bernie” candidate. Bloomberg is using money to get his message out there. But money alone wouldn’t have done it. Tom Steyer spent $127 million of his own money and couldn’t buy any support. Clinton spent twice as much on her campaign, and adding in pro-Clinton PACs spending on her behalf was three times as much. If money was as important as people say, it should never have been close enough for Russian media manipulation to matter.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I don't think anybody is saying that money alone is enough. For one thing, just like any ad campaign, you have to spend it well. But if you really believe money isn't very important, you'll have to explain why successful candidates all spend a great deal of time raising money. And then keep on doing so despite the clear advantages of incumbency.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

krick 7y ago

Ah, come on. "Democracy" was always like that. "Democracy" is a meme, and always has been, maybe except to the times when all the quorum could fit on Agora and voice their opinions.

standardUser 7y ago

Replace "tech companies" with "media companies" if you want to understand American politics pre-2016.

vinniejames 7y ago
At least now we have some voices who dont originate from tech or media in the mix, as opposed to almost none