President Donald Trump

[The Feral Slasher]

I've read some good articles recently. It helped me understand the scale of the Russian operation. It was not insignificant, but small compared to all other sources, especially when considering the budgets of the campaigns themselves. Maybe in the next election someone should just hire a bunch of cheap overseas trolls. Probably already happened, I'd be surprised if no one has thought of it yet.

I've seen examples of the ads they created and honestly it looked like infowars/Alex Jones types stuff. I have a hard time believing it was effective in converting Hillary supporters or many independents.

For me the most interesting thing is how this will play out in the future. How do we react ? Do we start a war with Russia ? Do we implement restrictions on free speech ? Do campaigns start hiring cheap overseas troll farms ? I have a feeling the repurcussions from the Russian involvement may be much worse than the involvement itself. That is under the assumption that they didn't actually affect the outcome, if they did, that is obviously a huge impact.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/

2. The magnitude of the interference revealed so far is not trivial but is still fairly modest as compared with the operations of the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

The indictment alleges that an organization called the Internet Research Agency had a monthly budget of approximately $1.25 million toward interference efforts by September 2016 and that it employed “hundreds of individuals for its online operation.” This is a fairly significant magnitude — much larger than the paltry sums that Russian operatives had previously been revealed to spend on Facebook advertising.

Nonetheless, it’s small as compared with the campaigns. The Clinton campaign and Clinton-backing super PACs spent a combined $1.2 billion over the course of the campaign. The Trump campaign and pro-Trump super PACs spent $617 million overall.

In terms of headcounts rather than budgets, the gap isn’t quite so dramatic. The “hundreds” of people working for the Internet Research Agency compare with 4,200 paid Clinton staffers2 and 880 paid Trump staffers.3 Russian per-capita GDP is estimated at around $10,000 U.S. dollars — about one-sixth of what it is in the U.S. — so a $1.25 million monthly budget potentially goes a lot farther there than it does here. The Russian efforts were on the small side as compared with the massive magnitudes of the campaigns, but not so small that you’d consider them a rounding error.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/16/this-is-what-1-25-million-dollars-a-month-bought-the-russians/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russian-influence-campaign-whats-latest-mueller-indictment

[Redbirds Fan]

I've read some good articles recently. It helped me understand the scale of the Russian operation. It was not insignificant, but small compared to all other sources, especially when considering the budgets of the campaigns themselves. Maybe in the next election someone should just hire a bunch of cheap overseas trolls. Probably already happened, I'd be surprised if no one has thought of it yet.

I've seen examples of the ads they created and honestly it looked like infowars/Alex Jones types stuff. I have a hard time believing it was effective in converting Hillary supporters or many independents.

For me the most interesting thing is how this will play out in the future. How do we react ? Do we start a war with Russia ? Do we implement restrictions on free speech ? Do campaigns start hiring cheap overseas troll farms ? I have a feeling the repurcussions from the Russian involvement may be much worse than the involvement itself. That is under the assumption that they didn't actually affect the outcome, if they did, that is obviously a huge impact.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/

2. The magnitude of the interference revealed so far is not trivial but is still fairly modest as compared with the operations of the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

The indictment alleges that an organization called the Internet Research Agency had a monthly budget of approximately $1.25 million toward interference efforts by September 2016 and that it employed “hundreds of individuals for its online operation.” This is a fairly significant magnitude — much larger than the paltry sums that Russian operatives had previously been revealed to spend on Facebook advertising.

Nonetheless, it’s small as compared with the campaigns. The Clinton campaign and Clinton-backing super PACs spent a combined $1.2 billion over the course of the campaign. The Trump campaign and pro-Trump super PACs spent $617 million overall.

In terms of headcounts rather than budgets, the gap isn’t quite so dramatic. The “hundreds” of people working for the Internet Research Agency compare with 4,200 paid Clinton staffers2 and 880 paid Trump staffers.3 Russian per-capita GDP is estimated at around $10,000 U.S. dollars — about one-sixth of what it is in the U.S. — so a $1.25 million monthly budget potentially goes a lot farther there than it does here. The Russian efforts were on the small side as compared with the massive magnitudes of the campaigns, but not so small that you’d consider them a rounding error.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/16/this-is-what-1-25-million-dollars-a-month-bought-the-russians/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russian-...ler-indictment

Yes, I have seen this argument many places, but it is another example of misdirection and deflection.

Essentially it argues that because because we think the Russian attack on our Democracy was in some way quantitatively "small" as compared to the huge sums spent by our political parties that we should somehow ignore it or at least shrug it off. This is, stated simply, bullshit. It is our country. It is our election. We can run it how we want to. They don't get to take part. That's not my theory, that is the law. Anyone who helps them take part in our elections in the slightest way has committed a federal crime.

They don't get to come over here and murder our people or rob our banks, even if they don't murder very many or rob only a few. And they don't get to subvert our democracy. Even a little.

[Hornsby]

Just remember that Clinton lost Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, and Michigan by only 16,653...staggeringly small numbers in a Presidential election year. I think that if you say that Russian influence had nothing to do with the Trump win...

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, I have seen this argument many places, but it is another example of misdirection and deflection.

Essentially it argues that because because we think the Russian attack on our Democracy was in some way quantitatively "small" as compared to the huge sums spent by our political parties that we should somehow ignore it or at least shrug it off. This is, stated simply, bullshit. It is our country. It is our election. We can run it how we want to. They don't get to take part. That's not my theory, that is the law. Anyone who helps them take part in our elections in the slightest way has committed a federal crime.

They don't get to come over here and murder our people or rob our banks, even if they don't murder very many or rob only a few. And they don't get to subvert our democracy. Even a little.

I don't think Nate Silver or I argued any of the things you seem to think I did, maybe you should re-read my post once you calm down

[nots]

Just remember that Clinton lost Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, and Michigan by only 16,653...staggeringly small numbers in a Presidential election year. I think that if you say that Russian influence had nothing to do with the Trump win...

Even if she had won Wisconsin and Michigan, she still would have lost, correct?

[Bernie Brewer]

Just remember that Clinton lost Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, and Michigan by only 16,653...staggeringly small numbers in a Presidential election year. I think that if you say that Russian influence had nothing to do with the Trump win...

I know you acknowledge this, but this is exactly why Chance and others will remind people that Hillary and her team didn’t show up in those two states. That was the difference. The vote differnces were razor thin. But I think it is disingenuous (not of you) to play the vote count card only when discussing Russian influence, but then discount her gross miscalculation of support in those easy to win states. And, vice versa.

[chancellor]

Well sir, I do take exception to the "abject stupidity" comment, I think that there's abundant evidence, albeit circumstantial, that the Russian efforts certainly hurt HRC's campaign, and helped out Trumps. To what extent it's impossible to say right now, but I have confidence that Mueller is gathering facts that we're simply not aware of. And the hours and hours of testimony contain things that we may not know for months...

There's zero quantifiable evidence that anything the Russians did impacted the election. To your point about vote count, the Clinton campaign's arrogance and stupidity impacted that orders of magnitude greater than any supposed Russian meddling. Thinking Wisconsin was in the bag? With a GOP governor and senate? Arrogant and stupid. Showing up in Michigan roughly much less than Trump? That may simply qualify as stupid. Ignoring Nate Silver's early warnings - for the third time in the last ten years, I'll add - that they were in trouble in both states? Arrogant and stupid. And knowing the Clinton campaign and DNC, they probably pissed all over Nate like they did the two previous times. Reducing advertising in Pennsylvania, on-line, print, and TV? LULZ.

I mean, geez, I could keep going. The list is not endless, but certainly deep, of issues the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC wholly botched that are vastly greater than any possible Russian influence.

[gcstomp]

Map would have needed PA and its 20 EV and less than 44k votes difference to switch map to HRC. Just crazy small margins that unprecedented actions like FBI Comey release couple days before election changed margin from +3 to flat day of, even if we assume that the vast russian operation was a mere hoax, never happened, never mind every intel agency in our country as well as foreign are in agreement that a foreign power operated unchecked in a 3 prong attack on election.

[chancellor]

Ah, a great legal concept.

But while Hillary may have suffered no actionable injury, We The People most certainly did.

Should MS-13 execute a drive-by and send a few rounds flying through someone's living room, would you say they suffered no injury because nobody was struck by the bullets? Of course not.

I doubt We The People did. And the analogy I'd use is the drive-by shooters missed everything entirely, but...

Essentially it argues that because because we think the Russian attack on our Democracy was in some way quantitatively "small" as compared to the huge sums spent by our political parties that we should somehow ignore it or at least shrug it off. This is, stated simply, bullshit. It is our country. It is our election. We can run it how we want to. They don't get to take part. That's not my theory, that is the law. Anyone who helps them take part in our elections in the slightest way has committed a federal crime.

Well, we know the Russian attack was not merely small, but trivial. But your point is still valid. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the prosecution of Facebook and Google for their gross negligence and immoral profiteering off their assistance of the Russians in influencing the election.

[gcstomp]

Hundreds of Putin operatives working for months unchecked is anything but small and trivial, it is staggering, vast, and obviously difference making when talking about needing margins of 1% or less in swing states. Some pro Bernie sites, more than 50% of traffic, putin bots and operatives. Facebook memes that were actively accessed, shared, and exposed to over 100 million users, on a site where average user spends hours a day, and fb is only or primary news site.

supposed Russian meddling

Your position, your words. Just indefensible position.

[dslaw]

There's zero quantifiable evidence that anything the Russians did impacted the election.

I think this will always be true regardless of outcome of Mueller's investigation. How can you prove Jane Doe voted for Trump instead of Hillary because of a stupid thing she saw on Facebook? It probably did change vote totals but there is no way to know how much it changed the totals.

I was sitting at a pizza place with the wife last week watching the Olympics. A lady next to us was rooting for the US guys to do well when she turned to her husband and said "Which Korea are mad at, North or South?" My first thought was people like her are the ones swayed by totally untrue crap they read on facebook. Being in UT she probably voted for Trump, if she voted, but people like that just need to stay home on election day.

[Redbirds Fan]

I doubt We The People did. And the analogy I'd use is the drive-by shooters missed everything entirely, but...



Well, we know the Russian attack was not merely small, but trivial. But your point is still valid. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the prosecution of Facebook and Google for their gross negligence and immoral profiteering off their assistance of the Russians in influencing the election.

What about this brings out the glibness in people? There is nothing trivial about the harm that was done here.

Not sure you can prosecute companies merely for gross negligence and immoral profiteering, but there should still be harsh consequences for facebook and the Google.

[Sour Masher]

Hundreds of Putin operatives working for months unchecked is anything but small and trivial, it is staggering, vast, and obviously difference making when talking about needing margins of 1% or less in swing states. Some pro Bernie sites, more than 50% of traffic, putin bots and operatives. Facebook memes that were actively accessed, shared, and exposed to over 100 million users, on a site where average user spends hours a day, and fb is only or primary news site.

supposed Russian meddling

Your position, your words. Just indefensible position.

I agree. It may be hard to quantify, but the psychological impact of so many bots and plants echoing, amplifying, and swaying people's thoughts was real. The impact of such things is why many sites have done away with comment sections, which some studies showed to be more persuasive to readers than the more well-researched and thought out articles they were commenting on. The shear volume of people/bots claiming falsehoods, and the way they did it, by saying things like "everyone who isn't an idiot, of course knows that...." is a very powerful method of manipulation and persuasion, especially for those who don't have the time to do actual research on a subject.

I concede Chance's point that there is not yet hard evidence quantifying the impact of Russia's interference (there may never be, as it would be very hard to parse the Russian campaign of mis-information and propaganda from normal GOP opposition attacks); however, the lack of that evidence, and the difficulty of quantifying that impact is NOT evidence that such interference was trivial or completely irrelevant to the results.

My personal experience with social media linked to Russia having a great impact on people I know is anecdotal, but for me, powerful evidence that such things did matter to at least some voters. My mother is one of them. She sent me several things she got through Facebook, anti-hillary stuff and pro-Trump stuff that was later found to come from Russian sources. They were instrumental in switching her from a life-long Democrat who was only vaguely distrustful of HRC to a fervent anti-Hillary/Trump supporter. She is just one voter, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest sort of evidence, but my witnessing of the impact of this stuff on her was a persuasive case study for me. I believe she was not the only voter who began with a general distrust of HRC, for some valid reasons, that got sucked into believing far more nefarious and far more unsubstantiated things about her, and also was led to believe many positive things about Trump that were not supported by vetted, credible sources.

[The Feral Slasher]

I concede Chance's point that there is not yet hard evidence quantifying the impact of Russia's interference (there may never be, as it would be very hard to parse the Russian campaign of mis-information and propaganda from normal GOP opposition attacks); however, the lack of that evidence, and the difficulty of quantifying that impact is NOT evidence that such interference was trivial or completely irrelevant to the results.

I think this is part of what makes me skeptical, if Russian based people/bots weren't putting out info there was still all sorts of other Republican and right-wing sites that were attacking Hilary. Everything I've read indicates the Russians were a very small part of the overall picture, it isn't like she wasn't being attacked by your standard sleazy Republicans.

[Hornsby]

I know you acknowledge this, but this is exactly why Chance and others will remind people that Hillary and her team didn’t show up in those two states. That was the difference. The votemdiffernces were razor thin. But I think it is disingenuous (not of you) to play the vote count card only when discussing Russian influence, but then discount her gross miscalculation of support in those easy to win states. And vice versa.

I have said a thousand times here, that HRC WAS the one responsible for her losses in the end. She admits it. She could have overcome the Russian interference, Comey, and the other issues if she had managed her campaign correctly. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it...