6 ms·

There are levels to influence. Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election. This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was,

There are levels to influence. Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election. This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was, then suddenly he's at 20+%. That's next level. You think that having bad press, as Trump had, was bad - that's not true at all, there is no such thing as bad press. The fact that the media in the US all went against him was just a freebie for Trump in terms of exposure. Here, on the other hand, no media outlet reported on him, which is very different - yet mysteriously he got 20% from TikTok alone. So yes, it's good to remove him.

rayiner 2y ago
Second guessing an election result based on handwaving like this is completely insane. You do not have a functional mental model of how and why elections work.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Yeah, luckily I don't live in the US where you get a crazy billionaire to fund a certified madman into office, both clearly for money and power reasons that have nothing to do with 'the people' and then let that be valid. No thanks.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >clearly for money and power reasons that have nothing to do with 'the people' Wtf? Not sure in which Fantasy land you live, but all political candidates everywhere receive campaign money from billionaires specifically "for money and power reasons and not to make life better for the voters", otherwise they wouldn't pay and elections would be worthless to them. You're just pissed trump won, and ignoring that Kamala received 3x-5x the campaign money from wealthy donors than Trump did. So who's the one being influenced by mad billionaires more? https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      I don't mean the funding, I mean 'free speech' X prioritising everything in favor of Trump just so Musk (not necessarily Trump) ends up with more power for himself and his businesses. I didn't think Kamala was any good either, but this is a shitshow and I'm happy that in RO we don't do that, no matter what all the 'scamming ignorant/dumb people is democracy, so let it run!' people say; lying to people to get votes is not democratic. We saw how great it worked with brexit and we'll see how great it will work out with trump; the people who voted in both cases had no clue what they are voting for (unless you are rich looking for tax breaks and regulatory de-pressuring, then of course you knew what you voted for; moa moneyz); they are lied to and it will be their undoing.
      - Cumpiler69 2y ago
        What are you on about? Kamala's campaign has the same free speech access o X as Trump did. Same with Joe Rogan. He even invited Kamala for a talk and she refused. But Trump didn't and then people blame Joe Rogan for "helping Trump win the elections". At what point is the Democratic Party gonna admit they fucked up every step of the way to connect with the voter, instead of blaming everyone else? RO is even worse since we're ruled by the same cabal from the communist regime and their chronies and descendents who are basically in every political party. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, the same people will end up profiting off corruption. At least the US cabal has some entreprenourial billionaires who create top companies and great jobs boosting their economy. RO politics is just thieves stealing from the economy, so we depend on the EU and their companies hiring here for jobs and economic growth.
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        [dead]
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >the people who voted in both cases had no clue Please speak for yourself. I voted for Trump and I knew exactly for whom/what I was voting for.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Saline9515 2y ago
> Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election Based on the media coverage? Building a narrative around a character is done over time, that's what PR consultants do, in hand with journalists and newspapers owners and advertisers. > This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was, then suddenly he's at 20+%. That's next level. This is very common in elections. Trump was supposed to lose by a large margin in 2016. Polls aren't votes.
- intended 2y ago
  They are saying he was unknown, not that he was unpopular in the polls. In both elections Trump running by was the aberration. His wins have been a function of the electoral college in action.
  - trafficante 2y ago
    Pretty sure Trump won the national popular vote this last time around though? And there’s a strong (politically neutral) argument that Clinton could have pulled off an EC win in 2016 if she had taken Trump more seriously - eg: she never once campaigned in Wisconsin [1]. Going back a bit further, and somewhat tying into the topic of the thread, 2016 Trump owes his GOP nomination (and thus indirectly the Presidency) to a Clinton/DNC op designed to weaken the Republican field.[2] That’s not to say that Trump didn’t eventually resonate with the GOP base, but the powerbrokers of the RNC absolutely didn’t want him and yet their counterparts at the DNC were heavily in favor of putting Trump front and center everywhere. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-res... 2. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I think there’s a very strong argument Clinton could’ve won the EC in 2016. There was almost no EC bias this year. Trump won the tipping point state, PA, by 1.8, and the popular vote by about 1.5. The country swung 5-6 points right from 2020. But Harris pretty much just parked herself in PA, MI, and WI and kept the swing in those states under 3 points. If she had won, she very well could’ve done so while losing the popular vote. It also shows that the counterfactuals are misguided. Campaigning makes a bigger difference than the typical margin of the popular vote. Candidates only campaign in the swing states (if they’re smart) so we don’t know what would happen if they were trying to win the popular vote.
jokethrowaway 2y ago
Young people are won over on TikTok, nothing weird about it. I don't know any of the TikTok people and yet many peers call them celebrities. This guy broke some rules around elections spending and he will be punished, but calling it Russia interference just because of his politics doesn't have any weight behind it.
- petre 2y ago
  If the secret service tells the president it's Russian interference, then it is what it is. The report was declassified and the Constitutional Court has acted on some of the interference complaints, of which there were at least three after the report was published. It has unanimously voted to cancel the election. This is part of the checks and balances of a functioning democracy.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    First of all, the secret service did not tell the President it was Russian interference. They said they suspected foreign interference. Legal decisions can't be based on hearsay from the secret service. Courts take decisions based on proof presented in front of them. For extraordinary decisions, they are supposed to look for extraordinary evidence. The declassified documents are pointing at irregularities, and perhaps a campaign finance violation by one individual. That is a far cry from overwhelming evidence.
    - petre 2y ago
      I've read the actual reports, they contain facts and details, with names blacked out, not suspicions. They point to Russian interference. They state that the campaign is similar to the ones in Ukraine before the invasion and the one during the ellectrions in Moldova. And the Constitutional Court obviously knows better given the fact that all the judges voted for the same outcome: to annul the election.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        You should read them again. They do go into some detail, and they find the following facts: - CG's campaign was well organized, on Telegram, by many dedicated people (at least some of which are Romanians, such as those identified but blacked out in the MAI report); at least some of these people have a history of extremist and pro-Russian views, but the documents make no mention of any direct Russian connection - the campaign used large numbers of fake or dormant Tik Tok accounts, and accessed these from many IPs - Romanian influencers were paid to promote pro-CG messages, and they mislabeled much of the paid promotion videos; some Romanian corporations that funded this are identified but blacked out in the MAI report - Russia led its own disinformation campaigns in various ways, unrelated to CG's campaign (the SIE report documents various Russian activities, not a single one mentioning CG or any other candidate or party or group of parties) - the SRI documents mention some data breaches and published passwords; the STS documents vehemently deny that any cyber actor made any successful attack on the core electoral infrastructure - the shape of the campaign, from content to infrastructure (mass numbers of dormant Tik Tok accounts being resurrected, coordination over Telegram, etc) is veryalmost identical to known Russian campaigns in Ukraine and Moldova - there is exactly one, non-specific, claim that "a state actor" coordinated with the CG campaign; here it is quoted in full, from the second SRI document: > the activity of the accounts was coordinated by a state actor who would have used an alternative communication channel to "roll" messages unto the platform That is the only specific claim that some state actor, and Russia is not mentioned here despite being mentioned in many other places in these documents. So again, only a suspicion of direct Russian interference in the campaign. And, while these documents suggest those services have more detailed proof of many of the suspicious activities they represent, the Court has not seen any of that proof: they have only seen these documents, as mentioned in their motivation, which constituted hearsay.
JPLeRouzic 2y ago
> Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election. This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was, then suddenly he's at 20+%. You can say exactly that about Macron in 2017, he never was elected before candidating for the presidential election. His only public role was as deputy secretary-general of François Holland who was at the time French president.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  That is not true. He was also the Minister of Economics, Industry and Digital Affairs under President François Hollande from 2014 to 2016. A very public role indeed.
yehat 2y ago
Having an assumption that those 5% were real is showing one is far from the reality of sociological "probing". Especially in Eastern Europe. It is far from a precedent and it has happened many times already in the past 20-30 years that the agencies are blind for certain candidates because... they're not paid to see them.

rayiner 2y ago

Second guessing an election result based on handwaving like this is completely insane. You do not have a functional mental model of how and why elections work.

anonzzzies 2y ago
Yeah, luckily I don't live in the US where you get a crazy billionaire to fund a certified madman into office, both clearly for money and power reasons that have nothing to do with 'the people' and then let that be valid. No thanks.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >clearly for money and power reasons that have nothing to do with 'the people' Wtf? Not sure in which Fantasy land you live, but all political candidates everywhere receive campaign money from billionaires specifically "for money and power reasons and not to make life better for the voters", otherwise they wouldn't pay and elections would be worthless to them. You're just pissed trump won, and ignoring that Kamala received 3x-5x the campaign money from wealthy donors than Trump did. So who's the one being influenced by mad billionaires more? https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    I don't mean the funding, I mean 'free speech' X prioritising everything in favor of Trump just so Musk (not necessarily Trump) ends up with more power for himself and his businesses. I didn't think Kamala was any good either, but this is a shitshow and I'm happy that in RO we don't do that, no matter what all the 'scamming ignorant/dumb people is democracy, so let it run!' people say; lying to people to get votes is not democratic. We saw how great it worked with brexit and we'll see how great it will work out with trump; the people who voted in both cases had no clue what they are voting for (unless you are rich looking for tax breaks and regulatory de-pressuring, then of course you knew what you voted for; moa moneyz); they are lied to and it will be their undoing.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      What are you on about? Kamala's campaign has the same free speech access o X as Trump did. Same with Joe Rogan. He even invited Kamala for a talk and she refused. But Trump didn't and then people blame Joe Rogan for "helping Trump win the elections". At what point is the Democratic Party gonna admit they fucked up every step of the way to connect with the voter, instead of blaming everyone else? RO is even worse since we're ruled by the same cabal from the communist regime and their chronies and descendents who are basically in every political party. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, the same people will end up profiting off corruption. At least the US cabal has some entreprenourial billionaires who create top companies and great jobs boosting their economy. RO politics is just thieves stealing from the economy, so we depend on the EU and their companies hiring here for jobs and economic growth.
      - anonzzzies 2y ago
        [dead]
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >the people who voted in both cases had no clue Please speak for yourself. I voted for Trump and I knew exactly for whom/what I was voting for.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Saline9515 2y ago

> Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election Based on the media coverage? Building a narrative around a character is done over time, that's what PR consultants do, in hand with journalists and newspapers owners and advertisers. > This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was, then suddenly he's at 20+%. That's next level. This is very common in elections. Trump was supposed to lose by a large margin in 2016. Polls aren't votes.

intended 2y ago
They are saying he was unknown, not that he was unpopular in the polls. In both elections Trump running by was the aberration. His wins have been a function of the electoral college in action.
- trafficante 2y ago
  Pretty sure Trump won the national popular vote this last time around though? And there’s a strong (politically neutral) argument that Clinton could have pulled off an EC win in 2016 if she had taken Trump more seriously - eg: she never once campaigned in Wisconsin [1]. Going back a bit further, and somewhat tying into the topic of the thread, 2016 Trump owes his GOP nomination (and thus indirectly the Presidency) to a Clinton/DNC op designed to weaken the Republican field.[2] That’s not to say that Trump didn’t eventually resonate with the GOP base, but the powerbrokers of the RNC absolutely didn’t want him and yet their counterparts at the DNC were heavily in favor of putting Trump front and center everywhere. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-res... 2. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I think there’s a very strong argument Clinton could’ve won the EC in 2016. There was almost no EC bias this year. Trump won the tipping point state, PA, by 1.8, and the popular vote by about 1.5. The country swung 5-6 points right from 2020. But Harris pretty much just parked herself in PA, MI, and WI and kept the swing in those states under 3 points. If she had won, she very well could’ve done so while losing the popular vote. It also shows that the counterfactuals are misguided. Campaigning makes a bigger difference than the typical margin of the popular vote. Candidates only campaign in the swing states (if they’re smart) so we don’t know what would happen if they were trying to win the popular vote.

jokethrowaway 2y ago

Young people are won over on TikTok, nothing weird about it. I don't know any of the TikTok people and yet many peers call them celebrities. This guy broke some rules around elections spending and he will be punished, but calling it Russia interference just because of his politics doesn't have any weight behind it.

petre 2y ago
If the secret service tells the president it's Russian interference, then it is what it is. The report was declassified and the Constitutional Court has acted on some of the interference complaints, of which there were at least three after the report was published. It has unanimously voted to cancel the election. This is part of the checks and balances of a functioning democracy.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  First of all, the secret service did not tell the President it was Russian interference. They said they suspected foreign interference. Legal decisions can't be based on hearsay from the secret service. Courts take decisions based on proof presented in front of them. For extraordinary decisions, they are supposed to look for extraordinary evidence. The declassified documents are pointing at irregularities, and perhaps a campaign finance violation by one individual. That is a far cry from overwhelming evidence.
  - petre 2y ago
    I've read the actual reports, they contain facts and details, with names blacked out, not suspicions. They point to Russian interference. They state that the campaign is similar to the ones in Ukraine before the invasion and the one during the ellectrions in Moldova. And the Constitutional Court obviously knows better given the fact that all the judges voted for the same outcome: to annul the election.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      You should read them again. They do go into some detail, and they find the following facts: - CG's campaign was well organized, on Telegram, by many dedicated people (at least some of which are Romanians, such as those identified but blacked out in the MAI report); at least some of these people have a history of extremist and pro-Russian views, but the documents make no mention of any direct Russian connection - the campaign used large numbers of fake or dormant Tik Tok accounts, and accessed these from many IPs - Romanian influencers were paid to promote pro-CG messages, and they mislabeled much of the paid promotion videos; some Romanian corporations that funded this are identified but blacked out in the MAI report - Russia led its own disinformation campaigns in various ways, unrelated to CG's campaign (the SIE report documents various Russian activities, not a single one mentioning CG or any other candidate or party or group of parties) - the SRI documents mention some data breaches and published passwords; the STS documents vehemently deny that any cyber actor made any successful attack on the core electoral infrastructure - the shape of the campaign, from content to infrastructure (mass numbers of dormant Tik Tok accounts being resurrected, coordination over Telegram, etc) is veryalmost identical to known Russian campaigns in Ukraine and Moldova - there is exactly one, non-specific, claim that "a state actor" coordinated with the CG campaign; here it is quoted in full, from the second SRI document: > the activity of the accounts was coordinated by a state actor who would have used an alternative communication channel to "roll" messages unto the platform That is the only specific claim that some state actor, and Russia is not mentioned here despite being mentioned in many other places in these documents. So again, only a suspicion of direct Russian interference in the campaign. And, while these documents suggest those services have more detailed proof of many of the suspicious activities they represent, the Court has not seen any of that proof: they have only seen these documents, as mentioned in their motivation, which constituted hearsay.

JPLeRouzic 2y ago

> Macron and Trump were widely recognized as candidate before the election. This guy in Romania was at 5%, no one knew who he was, then suddenly he's at 20+%. You can say exactly that about Macron in 2017, he never was elected before candidating for the presidential election. His only public role was as deputy secretary-general of François Holland who was at the time French president.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago
That is not true. He was also the Minister of Economics, Industry and Digital Affairs under President François Hollande from 2014 to 2016. A very public role indeed.

yehat 2y ago

Having an assumption that those 5% were real is showing one is far from the reality of sociological "probing". Especially in Eastern Europe. It is far from a precedent and it has happened many times already in the past 20-30 years that the agencies are blind for certain candidates because... they're not paid to see them.