Election 2020

[Judge Jude]

I retract "little-seen" from the discussion.

I still don't quite see how Facebook ads can flip a two-time Obama voter into a Trump voter - which is what turned the election.

Getting a would-be Hillary voter to stay home? Maybe.

I don't like to be stuck on any conclusion. And just because all the breathless reporting for 2 years on Trump collusion with Russia turned out to be bogus, that does not negate the separate possibility of the level of influence the Russian hackers may have had on voters in 2016.

[nots]

I would be interested to hear why the previous administration didn’t do much of anything about the Russian influence into the election.

[ironfist]

I retract "little-seen" from the discussion.

I still don't quite see how Facebook ads can flip a two-time Obama voter into a Trump voter - which is what turned the election.

If you think that it comes down to a Facebook ad or two, that might be where you are not grasping the extent of the operation. There were hundreds of fake accounts, facebook pages, facebook groups, and memes created that people would interact with. They created actual protests in parts of the country through social media. They would play one against each other to stoke the passion of targeted voters so that they would either get out to vote for a preferred candidate or stay home and not vote in protest. They would create discord and distrust for legitimate news sources. This is a huge operation. I have read about this being done in other countries by the Russians (notably Ukraine) so it was not surprising to me to discover that this was happening.

Read the comments for any news story and you'll see all the commenters and realize that some of them are indeed fake accounts that are just causing discord. That latest factually challenged meme that was being shared by your politically motivated friends? It was possibly created by one of these troll farms.

[DMT]

I would be interested to hear why the previous administration didn’t do much of anything about the Russian influence into the election.

From what little I've gleaned, Obama was focused on the Iran deal above all else, and didn't want to risk undermining it. A terrible mistake (i.e., ignoring the election efforts, not the Iran deal).

[Kevin Seitzer]

From what little I've gleaned, Obama was focused on the Iran deal above all else, and didn't want to risk undermining it. A terrible mistake (i.e., ignoring the election efforts, not the Iran deal).

And I think, assuming that Clinton would win, which led to a combination of not wanting to be seen as having put his hand unfairly on the scales in her favor and a misjudgment of the consequences if she didn't.

It's similar in some ways to the misjudgment that Comey made about his Clinton announcements, assuming she would win.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I retract "little-seen" from the discussion.

I still don't quite see how Facebook ads can flip a two-time Obama voter into a Trump voter - which is what turned the election.

Getting a would-be Hillary voter to stay home? Maybe.

I don't like to be stuck on any conclusion. And just because all the breathless reporting for 2 years on Trump collusion with Russia turned out to be bogus, that does not negate the separate possibility of the level of influence the Russian hackers may have had on voters in 2016.

There was no prosecutable evidence of a criminal conspiracy found between Trump and Russia on the campaign. Certainly there was a lot of punditry that assumed there would be evidence of that conspiracy, or worse, outright treason. But I don't think the reporting of the facts by the media was actually found to be false. The reporting was, by and large, found to be accurate. There was a lot of cooperation and communication between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, of which Trump was found to be aware, and Mueller validated most (if not all?) of the reporting on that front.

[Sour Masher]

You bash Bernie for being Honest in his sentiment. Hope it won't haunt him, but still point out the fact his position might cost votes.

You and every other Clinton supporter still doesn't get it.

Signed, a guy who was there and knows that NO Sanders supporter is going to get behind ANYONE right of Bernie.

Either you arbitrarily used my post as a jumping off point for your screed, or you did not read my post carefully. I did not "bash" Sanders for being honest. I said I appreciated that about him--it is one of the things I like best about him. What I said was i disagreed with his stance on this one issue, and I also think it is a stance most voters disagree with him on. I also said this is a minor thing that shouldn't impact people's voting or not voting for him, but I was concerned it would not play well for him. You didn't address with whether you agreed with Sanders on this issue, or whether you thought it would win or lose him voters, but rather made an assumption that I was a HRC supporter, and then went on a rant.

Regarding your last line, it only confirms for me how cult-like some Sanders supporters are. I like much about Sanders, I admire a lot about him, and think the perspectives he brings to the Democratic table are healthy and important ones that can move the party to a better place. But it is so off-putting to see his most fervent supporters either be completely blind to reality or act like petulant children when they proclaim they will support Sanders and no one else. I see only two logical reasons for that. Either those people see no difference at all between anyone even slightly to the right of Sanders and Donald Trump, which is absurd, or they do realize that supporting someone who shares most of their ideals and who isn't a vile racist, demagogue is better than 4 more years of Trump, but pout because their candidate doesn't end up winning the primary and decide to allow the worst candidate to win, because they did not get their way. The idea that a Sanders supporter, for instance, would not switch support to someone like Warren, if she somehow beat him out in the primary shows just how myopic and self-defeating such a person is.

[Sour Masher]

just an observation - one thing I've learned from having two 21-year-olds living with us the past year - the impact social media has on youth today can't be overstated. People in their 20's quite literally have no concept of mass media - they get ALL their news from their feeds, whether it's Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, whatever. All of it. They have no idea what MSM is - I bet they wouldn't be able to name three major tv networks. So to suggest that a fb ad is little seen, that may be true for our generation, but it's everything to anyone under 30.

It's worthy of another thread but I really have come to realize how differently they think ... working in IT I used to think I'm kind of literate with trends like what's going on in social media, but I really have become aware just what a different world they live in.

This is true, but it isn't only the youth. Ever since I brought my mother a tablet, she became obsessed with FB and gets all of her info through it. She went from a life-long Dem to a trump supporter and often spouted off to me every lie she saw about HRC through her FB feed and every lie she saw supporting Trump. I think JJ, because he himself doesn't exist in a social media bubble, cannot comprehend how powerful it can be in shaping the minds who do exist in that bubble, and how the seeds planted by false stories and fake accounts spread and echo and amplify. He points to how little money was spent on such targeted, one-side fake news, but such things get a lot of bang for their buck.

That said, I do think it was but one factor in HRC's loss, and likely not the largest one. She was a flawed candidate and made an awful lot of mistakes. Obama was mercilessly attacked as well, but adapted and thrived despite them. HRC did not, and so I understand where JJ is coming from in lashing out at those he thinks is making excuses for her loss. But both things can be true. She was both a flawed candidate who made many mistakes that contributed to her loss, and she was also attacked while her opponent was supported by foreign trolls with a vested interest in spreading discord and chaos in our country. There is really no telling about much of a factor the latter was on her loss. Ultimately, I blame her for not adapting to the issue and overcoming it to beat a buffoon reality star with no political experience or expertise.

[DMT]

Either you arbitrarily used my post as a jumping off point for your screed, or you did not read my post carefully. I did not "bash" Sanders for being honest. I said I appreciated that about him--it is one of the things I like best about him. What I said was i disagreed with his stance on this one issue, and I also think it is a stance most voters disagree with him on. I also said this is a minor thing that shouldn't impact people's voting or not voting for him, but I was concerned it would not play well for him. You didn't address with whether you agreed with Sanders on this issue, or whether you thought it would win or lose him voters, but rather made an assumption that I was a HRC supporter, and then went on a rant.

Regarding your last line, it only confirms for me how cult-like some Sanders supporters are. I like much about Sanders, I admire a lot about him, and think the perspectives he brings to the Democratic table are healthy and important ones that can move the party to a better place. But it is so off-putting to see his most fervent supporters either be completely blind to reality or act like petulant children when they proclaim they will support Sanders and no one else. I see only two logical reasons for that. Either those people see no difference at all between anyone even slightly to the right of Sanders and Donald Trump, which is absurd, or they do realize that supporting someone who shares most of their ideals and who isn't a vile racist, demagogue is better than 4 more years of Trump, but pout because their candidate doesn't end up winning the primary and decide to allow the worst candidate to win, because they did not get their way. The idea that a Sanders supporter, for instance, would not switch support to someone like Warren, if she somehow beat him out in the primary shows just how myopic and self-defeating such a person is.

Yea, GITH isn't interested in moving us forward. He just wants everyone to know he's better than us and that we're all awful people for not personally APOLOGIZING to him and every other Sanders supporter and self-flogging ourselves for ever supporting Clinton. Frankly, he's a troll and not worth engaging with. It's unfortunate because we generally agree on most policies, but his personality on this board is so off-putting that I can't even be bothered to build from those.

[Teenwolf]

I would be interested to hear why the previous administration didn’t do much of anything about the Russian influence into the election.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-interference

Pretty sure Mitch McConnell was unwilling to call out Russian election meddling, so Obama and Biden decided against releasing the info without bi-partisan support. Shocking, Obama getting sidelined, not fighting back, and Republicans reaping the spoils of their obstructionism.

The article is from January 2018, but Biden seems pretty transparent in stating that they didn't reveal Russian interference because it was a political calculation the revelation would damage HRC more than Trump. He even implies that the decision not to disclose was based partly on thinking HRC had it in the bag.

"Can you imagine if the president called a press conference in October, with this fella, Bannon, and company, and said, 'Tell you what: Russians are trying to interfere in our elections and we have to do something about it,' " he said. "Would things have gotten better, or would it further look like we were trying to de-legitimize the electoral process, because of our opponent?"

"Had we known what we knew three weeks later, we may have done something more," Biden added.

[Ken]

Pretty sure Mitch McConnell was unwilling to call out Russian election meddling

Biden seems pretty transparent in stating that they didn't reveal Russian interference because it was a political calculation the revelation would damage HRC more than Trump.

Looks pretty terrible on both of them.

I hate politicians.

[revo]

At this point, shouldn't we be more concerned about how the current regime will handle potential Russian interference in 2020? Because it sure seems like they're not taking it seriously and doing absolutely nothing:

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was urged by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney not to bring up the subject of possible Russian interference in the 2020 election to President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Citing interviews with three unnamed senior administration officials and one former senior official, the Times said Nielsen, who left the White House earlier this month, was told by Mulvaney in a meeting this year that Trump "still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory."

Mulvaney, one official told the paper, said in the meeting the subject of Russian interference in the upcoming election "wasn't a great subject and should be kept below (Trump's) level."

The report -- coming a day after White House senior adviser Jared Kushner downplayed Russian meddling efforts -- raises fresh questions about the readiness of US defenses against foreign interference in the next presidential election."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/kirstjen-nielsen-trump-election-security/index.html

[swampdragon]

At this point, shouldn't we be more concerned about how the current regime will handle potential Russian interference in 2020? Because it sure seems like they're not taking it seriously and doing absolutely nothing:

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was urged by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney not to bring up the subject of possible Russian interference in the 2020 election to President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Citing interviews with three unnamed senior administration officials and one former senior official, the Times said Nielsen, who left the White House earlier this month, was told by Mulvaney in a meeting this year that Trump "still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory."

Mulvaney, one official told the paper, said in the meeting the subject of Russian interference in the upcoming election "wasn't a great subject and should be kept below (Trump's) level."

The report -- coming a day after White House senior adviser Jared Kushner downplayed Russian meddling efforts -- raises fresh questions about the readiness of US defenses against foreign interference in the next presidential election."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/polit...ity/index.html

um YES - that seems obvious

[ironfist]

At this point, shouldn't we be more concerned about how the current regime will handle potential Russian interference in 2020? Because it sure seems like they're not taking it seriously and doing absolutely nothing:

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was urged by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney not to bring up the subject of possible Russian interference in the 2020 election to President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Citing interviews with three unnamed senior administration officials and one former senior official, the Times said Nielsen, who left the White House earlier this month, was told by Mulvaney in a meeting this year that Trump "still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory."

Mulvaney, one official told the paper, said in the meeting the subject of Russian interference in the upcoming election "wasn't a great subject and should be kept below (Trump's) level."

The report -- coming a day after White House senior adviser Jared Kushner downplayed Russian meddling efforts -- raises fresh questions about the readiness of US defenses against foreign interference in the next presidential election."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/polit...ity/index.html

why would they do anything about it? It only benefits them

[revo]

um YES - that seems obvious

The problem is with these jokers, they do the exact opposite of what’s obvious.