3 ms·

You're confusing two statements: - Russia interfered in the 2016 election. - Clinton lost the 2016 election primarily due to Russian interference.

mariodiana 5y ago
Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.
- everdrive 5y ago
  Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
  - mariodiana 5y ago
    You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
    - orwin 5y ago
      > My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. Yes, exactly. It was the Same in 2017 in France, they did "interfere", but the goal was not to elect one or the other candidate. probably.
raxxorrax 5y ago
It was probably Clintons idea to elevate the conspiracy. There is actually evidence of that from a statement of Brennan. The Steele dosier hints that it is true. We don't know that. But there isn't any large scale Russian influence on the election either.

mariodiana 5y ago

Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.

everdrive 5y ago
Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
- mariodiana 5y ago
  You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
  - orwin 5y ago
    > My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. Yes, exactly. It was the Same in 2017 in France, they did "interfere", but the goal was not to elect one or the other candidate. probably.

raxxorrax 5y ago

It was probably Clintons idea to elevate the conspiracy. There is actually evidence of that from a statement of Brennan. The Steele dosier hints that it is true. We don't know that. But there isn't any large scale Russian influence on the election either.