2016 Presidential election campaign 3

568 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

We all need to diligently investigate these claims for ourselves, before giving them any credibility, the same way we all investigated the leaks by Manning and Snowden before coming to any premature conclusions.

That's not because this time the leaks were damaging to Russia.  It's just the only right thing to do!

Doug Woodard

Why Trump won:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-el...

I expect the same applies to Canada though less strongly. Among other things many of our "rural" areas are doing well from resource extraction (or were when oil was higher), and we don't have the health care desperation that the Americans do.

josh

CIA had Russia's plans to disrupt the election.  In typical fashion, Obama refused to go public before the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.89480f9e20e4

josh

But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html?_r=0

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html?_r=0

When you think about the logic here it starts to crumble. It was decisive. Yes, of course. It was a narrow result. Everything was therefore decisive.

If you focus on elections and people changing their votes and point to a collection of people who changed one and examine their loyalty you can only conclude a lower result is possible. A target group can fracture but once defined, it cannot grow (the number who voted for Obama and Trump cannot ever increase so any less than  100% back is not recovery or any less than 100% to Republicans is less than what Trump had -- of those people).

If you look at the total and see all the movements of voters, and you consider defections from both parties, the conclusions are different. How many Trump voters who voted against Obama might be repulsed by the Trump Administration? Is this group bigger or smaller than the ones Trump (or a later Republican) might retain from the Obama-Trump voters?

As well, many studies only looked at net numbers. These are the numbers of people from a group who voted one way or the other. Voting is also secret so declarations are suspect and can be politically motivated. How many of each side stay home? In fact we have heard that the numbers who stayed home were decisive (see my first comment -- of course they were). And votes migrate in different directions for different reasons at different rates. The only people who speak up are those who want to speak up -- self selecting.

In Canada we have the same issue except more parties. So poeple speak about a migration of votes at times from the NDP to Conservatives ignoring that there may be no such thing. It can look like that if some people migrate from the NDP to the Liberals and from the Liberals to the Conservatives. this can happen while Liberals are moving to the NDP and Conservatives to Liberals at different rates and some people moving from a willingness to be polled to an unwillingnes or a choice to vote or not. In the end a simple statement is made about the net migration wether anyone actually did that migration is not often questioned.

In the US voters register so a little more is known but, small number of people will change registration and not vote in the direction of their registration at the end. A small minority want to speak about it.

 

NDPP

Former NSA Official: Dems' Russia Hacking Story Likely Bogus (and vid)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47634.htm

"Bill Binney told Tucker Carlson he has data showing that the Democrats' narrative regarding Russia hacking the DNC annd 2016 election are untrue."

josh

Tucker Carlson?  What's the matter, Sean Hannity wouldn't have him?

NDPP

 

"Isn't this just another way of saying the DNC gave the election to Trump when they sabotaged Bernie Sanders?"

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/903025805688803332

 

Did Sanders Voters Tip The 2016 Election To Trump?

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/sanders-voters-tip-2016-election...

NorthReport
bekayne
Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

 

"Isn't this just another way of saying the DNC gave the election to Trump when they sabotaged Bernie Sanders?"

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/903025805688803332

 

Did Sanders Voters Tip The 2016 Election To Trump?

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/sanders-voters-tip-2016-election...

This is a fair comment. I think the prevailing view was that Trump could not win and that the battle was between Clinton and Sanders when somethign else was going on.

There is no question that Trump did benefit but I think most Sanders supporters may have seen ther actions as a protest. Very few people thought Trump could win and I think significant numbers of Sanders voters had a context of communities where Trump had no chance, quite likely unaware of the places where Trump was winning over people. I think it remains a shock to many how Trump could get over 4 in 10 voters to support him. In many respects Trump won becuase he was expected not to. If the polls had been accurate it is quite possible that he would not have won as people who may have protested or not voted would have voted to prevent that.

The story is not over either. It is possible that the backlash to Trump and exposing and the clearing out of many who hold such views could bring greater benefit and that those on the left who voted for Trump, may in fact have been correct in their gamble.

I personally know a person who was a Trump supporter as shocking as it was to me. I knew that person would only truly understand the difficulty with that position if he won -- although if I had been in the US I would not have voted for him.

Some social and environmental policy progress which would never have happened under CLinton may be possible after Trump. It is even possible that Trump's legacy may ironically be single payor healthcare for example.

josh

The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.

An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html?emc=edit_nn_20170908&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=77748371&te=1

josh

A number of Russian-linked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November, according to four sources with direct knowledge of the situation.

Some of the Russian ads appeared highly sophisticated in their targeting of key demographic groups in areas of the states that turned out to be pivotal, two of the sources said. The ads employed a series of divisive messages aimed at breaking through the clutter of campaign ads online, including promoting anti-Muslim messages, sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html

SeekingAPolitic...

This truly amazing and no Josh I am not being critical of you in any way when you bring this russian thing.  I want provide a histrical perpective to this issue.  I remember how badly the Americans wanted to broadcast American news into the eastern block.  I spent 13 years behind the iron curtain I remember those broadcast from the western euorpe were condsided American propaganda and a threat to the various governments.  But ordinary people thought of them a joke rather dimsive.  What was not a joke was the people would smuggle in western consumer goods.

The reason that the eastern block fell apart was poor quality consumer goods(compared to  western goods, corruption, towards the end economic failure came, it became impossible not use large scale repression to keep things going.)  People just lost faith in the system it was not delivering the goods.  The eastern block poured so much resources it the military realm.  I remember going with my mother to the black market to buy toliet paper, car batteries, jeans.  When I talk about a black market, in Canadian terms  giant flea markets.  The authorites knew about them becasue the state could not produce enough through offical channels, if they were shot down there would riots.  The soviet block could man 40,000 tanks, a truly awesome dispaly of military power.  But people could not find toilet paper around, or car batteries, or jeans these not exactly not exactly high tech consumer goods.  Instead of maintaining those 40,000 tanks why not close some military factories or convert them to producing more toilet paper.  Regardless of my experience I think socialism is best way to organize society, but the focus should  be to put general welfare and consumer goods rather than playing games of global dominance.  

I provided some context for rest of my argument.  That was in the past, it reminds of modern usa.  In the old days the USA wanted to show case it culture and ideas they believed ideas provide no threat to the American system.  Today russian broadcasts are actually consider a threat to american system.  Where is the confidence of the cold war, because showing flaws of American capitalism is no longer politicaly correct.  This not a reflection of russian info capablites by rather the weakness of the so called American dream.  Maybe the American dream was the utilmate propaganda piece or is that more awareness of the problems of american capitalism is being showed to the public.  This lack of confidence in the American way of life by the elites is stunning, where is the confidence?

josh

Sheryl Sandberg tells Axios that Facebook owes Americans an apology for allowing foreign interference in a democratic election.

https://twitter.com/TasneemN/status/918466178695286784

 

NorthReport
progressive17 progressive17's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

This truly amazing and no Josh I am not being critical of you in any way when you bring this russian thing.  I want provide a histrical perpective to this issue.  I remember how badly the Americans wanted to broadcast American news into the eastern block.  I spent 13 years behind the iron curtain I remember those broadcast from the western euorpe were condsided American propaganda and a threat to the various governments.  But ordinary people thought of them a joke rather dimsive.  What was not a joke was the people would smuggle in western consumer goods.

The reason that the eastern block fell apart was poor quality consumer goods(compared to  western goods, corruption, towards the end economic failure came, it became impossible not use large scale repression to keep things going.)  People just lost faith in the system it was not delivering the goods.  The eastern block poured so much resources it the military realm.  I remember going with my mother to the black market to buy toliet paper, car batteries, jeans.  When I talk about a black market, in Canadian terms  giant flea markets.  The authorites knew about them becasue the state could not produce enough through offical channels, if they were shot down there would riots.  The soviet block could man 40,000 tanks, a truly awesome dispaly of military power.  But people could not find toilet paper around, or car batteries, or jeans these not exactly not exactly high tech consumer goods.  Instead of maintaining those 40,000 tanks why not close some military factories or convert them to producing more toilet paper.  Regardless of my experience I think socialism is best way to organize society, but the focus should  be to put general welfare and consumer goods rather than playing games of global dominance.  

I provided some context for rest of my argument.  That was in the past, it reminds of modern usa.  In the old days the USA wanted to show case it culture and ideas they believed ideas provide no threat to the American system.  Today russian broadcasts are actually consider a threat to american system.  Where is the confidence of the cold war, because showing flaws of American capitalism is no longer politicaly correct.  This not a reflection of russian info capablites by rather the weakness of the so called American dream.  Maybe the American dream was the utilmate propaganda piece or is that more awareness of the problems of american capitalism is being showed to the public.  This lack of confidence in the American way of life by the elites is stunning, where is the confidence?

If the Soviet Union had switched to a consumer economy, it is likely that Hitler and/or the West would have destroyed it sooner.

Pages