Author Topic: Perspective on Russian Influence  (Read 13376 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:17:48 PM »
Here's straight forward read about how uninfluential Russian influence efforts really were on the 2016 election.  A lot of this stuff is actually in part 1 of the Mueller report but it's buried (I noted some of it as I read the report, but I've never seen even one media follow up on it until now).

https://www.creators.com/read/jacob-sullum/07/19/the-puny-reality-of-russian-election-meddling-if-moscow-aimed-to-sow-chaos-it-needed-a-much-bigger-budget

The DNC hack was influential.  The Russian influence campaign was not.  Period.  If any of this comes as a surprise to you after 3 years of intense media coverage, ask yourself why that would be.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2019, 02:26:32 PM »
And here's a straightforward read showing how influential Russian influence efforts really were: https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2019, 02:35:08 PM »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2019, 02:39:52 PM »
A problem I have with the article from the OP is that close to 0% of the voters decided the result of the election. Any argument about the effect of this or that effort to influence the result of the election needs to demonstrate how it effected (or failed to effect) voters in the deciding states. Spending $100k to reach voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania would be much more likely to have had an effect than spending $10 million to reach voters in California, New York, and Massachusetts. It's pretty unlikely that's what the Russians did but if you're arguing about what affected the election results, that's what you need to talk about.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2019, 02:45:14 PM »
DonaldD, I don't find that particularly responsive, the first isn't really facts based analysis, and it certainly doesn't touch or even try to refute the miniscule impact of Russian inteference.

The 538 article was written off the indictment from a year an a half ago, not the report itself.  An indictment is a prosecutors document, it's not designed to be fair only to state the case as harshly as possible.

In any event, if you're not responding to the actual claims, a citation battle is just throwing shade.  Partisans have written on this from every angle (mostly false), but how do you reconcile say your first link, with the user impact that does not differentiate significantly from zero on those platforms?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2019, 02:47:22 PM »
Spending $100k to reach voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania would be much more likely to have had an effect than spending $10 million to reach voters in California, New York, and Massachusetts. It's pretty unlikely that's what the Russians did but if you're arguing about what affected the election results, that's what you need to talk about.

I'm not quite sure it's reasonable any more to talk about strictly local effects. True, campaigning in a specific geographical zone costs money and you need to target that area with touring the campaign, talks with local industry, and so forth. However media access these days is pretty ubiquitous and I think it's not reasonable to divorce local decisions from broad public discourse. Reddit, Facebook, online publications, Twitter, and other online resources are available to people in all districts, and likewise the effects of media propagation will reach more or less everyone. On the one hand that makes it true that Russian influence would probably have an effect on people whether they thought to localize their efforts or not. But on the other hand it also means that public narratives about Russian hackers put up by the MSM would also equally reach everyone. You're not wrong that one should consider the relevant voters when discussing the issue, but on the other hand it might be a total wash in terms of how much Russia affected those particular voters considering how far-flung the media exposure was to just about everything during the election, from Hillary's servers to Trump's illicit statements.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2019, 02:47:33 PM »
From Seriati's link:
Quote
Some more numbers from the Mueller report help put the issue in perspective. Between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook identified 470 IRA-controlled accounts out of more than 1 billion active daily users. "The IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements," the report says, "and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000" — roughly 0.0004 percent of Facebook's ad revenue in 2016.

But from adage.com (https://adage.com/article/digital/russia-spent-1-25m-ads-acted-agency-mueller/312424) there is a claim that in the indictment announced in February 2018, Mueller's team claimed that the 13 Russian nationals (and the 3 Russian entities) were spending 1.25 million dollars per month:
Quote
Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment. It says the group kept track of metrics like views and comments, and measured engagement.
Who to believe?  This should be pretty easy to confirm... and it is (https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download):
Quote
Defendants and other co-conspirators carried out their activities to interfere in the U.S. political
system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. The ORGANIZATION employed hundreds of individuals for its online operations,
ranging from creators of fictitious personas to technical and administrative support.
The ORGANIZATION’s annual budget totaled the equivalent of millions of U.S.
dollars.

<snip>

By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for
Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over
1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus
payments.
Now, why would the creators.com article exclude the vast majority of the known funding of the Russian efforts during the 2016 election?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2019, 02:50:14 PM »
Quote
DonaldD, I don't find that particularly responsive
Was it supposed to be responsive? You just posted a poorly researched article with conclusions that were convenient to your own position.  I just posted other articles, as easily searchable, that came to different conclusions.

I also later showed that your article misrepresented the scope of the Russian efforts, which were off by at least a factor of 100.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2019, 02:56:17 PM »
And by misrepresented, I mean it ignored what the Russian operation was primarily doing, which was NOT purchasing ads and creating YouTube videos.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2019, 02:56:50 PM »
I'm not quite sure it's reasonable any more to talk about strictly local effects. True, campaigning in a specific geographical zone costs money and you need to target that area with touring the campaign, talks with local industry, and so forth. However media access these days is pretty ubiquitous and I think it's not reasonable to divorce local decisions from broad public discourse. Reddit, Facebook, online publications, Twitter, and other online resources are available to people in all districts, and likewise the effects of media propagation will reach more or less everyone. On the one hand that makes it true that Russian influence would probably have an effect on people whether they thought to localize their efforts or not. But on the other hand it also means that public narratives about Russian hackers put up by the MSM would also equally reach everyone. You're not wrong that one should consider the relevant voters when discussing the issue, but on the other hand it might be a total wash in terms of how much Russia affected those particular voters considering how far-flung the media exposure was to just about everything during the election, from Hillary's servers to Trump's illicit statements.

Counting global or national numbers is misrepresenting how US elections work. It's very similar to saying that since Clinton won the popular vote, Russian meddling didn't have an effect. It might be a wash and we probably don't have the data to properly figure it out but you can't establish that by looking at the really big numbers.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2019, 03:07:44 PM »
Counting global or national numbers is misrepresenting how US elections work. It's very similar to saying that since Clinton won the popular vote, Russian meddling didn't have an effect. It might be a wash and we probably don't have the data to properly figure it out but you can't establish that by looking at the really big numbers.

I wasn't at all suggesting looking at the global numbers. What I mean is that the public opinion and perception at the global level is itself something effecting those particular voter zones you referred to. It's not enough to just ask how much did Russia spend on the relevant areas, just as it's no good to ask how much did CNN or FOX really focus on those areas. The effects all involved parties had even on the rest of the country would itself have an effect on those areas. Person in relevant zone X knowing full well that the majority of the country has considered Bernie, let's say, to 'have no chance', is going very much to have their voting strategy affected by this knowledge. And likewise for any other considerations. The aggregate effect is itself an effect that works on local zones, and this in turn is part of the magic(k) of public perception that can turn into a kind of joined illusion (or realization) as the case may come.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2019, 03:11:48 PM »
Personally, I don’t think we understand the role social media plays in manipulating and influencing opinion or how effective such campaigns to do so are.
I suspect the Russians have a pretty good understanding.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2019, 03:28:14 PM »
Social media lets you engage with identified groups very precisely. A given ad campaign might reach only 500k people. If 80% of those people were in the three deciding states and effectively influenced the votes of 25% of them, that ad campaigned could be said to decide the election despite reaching only 0.4% of voters (please let my math be right). That assumes the that states in question would have been won by a different party without the extra-legal ad campaign but that's a very difficult thing to know.

Less abstractly, the margin of victory in the deciding states was 107k votes. Even if ordinary domestic partisan campaigning determined 99.9% of the total vote, the deciding votes could still have been influenced by foreign interests.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2019, 03:51:03 PM »
Quote
  anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked. Social media companies don't want us to know, and they obfuscate and drag their feet rather than disclosing information. The analytical tools to quantify the impact don’t readily exist.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2019, 04:45:42 PM »
Counting global or national numbers is misrepresenting how US elections work. It's very similar to saying that since Clinton won the popular vote, Russian meddling didn't have an effect. It might be a wash and we probably don't have the data to properly figure it out but you can't establish that by looking at the really big numbers.

I think you drifted away from the initial points:

1) The DNC Hack had a "significant impact" on the election.

2) The rest of the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.

I doubt anyone can dispute that the information contained in the DNC hack/data breach was a big factor in demotivating a lot of Democratic voters. If you go with "russia did it" then that meddling was a resounding success.

If you're talking about the latter point, you need to be mindful of trying to suss out the impacts of the first point. Using the first points undeniable impact to justify your claim doesn't work.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2019, 04:58:17 PM »
Quote
The rest of the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.
Except that the link in the opening post actually ignored the vast majority of the scope of the Russian interference, and for the 1%-2% of the Russian efforts that it did address, the source just hand-waved those efforts away because, well, the internet is really big, ignoring the details and just waving around the authors' hands.

So no, you cannot claim, using this source, that the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.  They may have been, but that source is useless in making the case.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2019, 05:20:17 PM »
All of this analysis is predicated on the idea that the Russian goal was to influence the Presidential outcome. As far as disrupting the American political process, its still paying dividends today with the impact on discourse, contention over how to combat it, sowing suspicion on Trump's ties to Russia, throwing suspicion on social media companies. Well worth the bucks. It also isn't clear if their efforts may have influenced downballot races. Or led to additional energy in various protests. Or if their seeding of various rallies inspired other people to create real rallies on their own.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2019, 05:22:41 PM »
All of this analysis is predicated on the idea that the Russian goal was to influence the Presidential outcome. As far as disrupting the American political process, its still paying dividends today with the impact on discourse, contention over how to combat it, sowing suspicion on Trump's ties to Russia, throwing suspicion on social media companies. Well worth the bucks. It also isn't clear if their efforts may have influenced downballot races. Or led to additional energy in various protests. Or if their seeding of various rallies inspired other people to create real rallies on their own.

I still think they were expecting Hillary to win. Even if she had won, the Russian interference would have thrown a cloud over her victory as well.

It already had with the DNC hack.

I think the goal was chaos, Trump winning was simply an unexpected outcome.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2019, 05:29:02 PM »
On further reflection, I'm kind of starting to suspect Putin was hoping Hillary would win, and that her response to the Russian meddling would be a bit more muscular than what Trump did. I'm thinking he was half-way hoping for "a limited war" with the United States where he could portray the US as being a militaristic bully.

He got the economic bully instead.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2019, 05:32:18 PM »
On further reflection, I'm kind of starting to suspect Putin was hoping Hillary would win, and that her response to the Russian meddling would be a bit more muscular than what Trump did. I'm thinking he was half-way hoping for "a limited war" with the United States where he could portray the US as being a militaristic bully.

He got the economic bully instead.

How, exactly, would having "a limited war" with the United States where he could portray the US as being a militaristic bully have actually helped Putin? 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2019, 06:06:00 PM »
How, exactly, would having "a limited war" with the United States where he could portray the US as being a militaristic bully have actually helped Putin?

War is good for business, it's also good for stoking the fires of nationalistic pride/ignoring other issues. It gives an excuse to justify significantly expanding military spending. It also gives a chance to try to showcase capabilities they have while "playing on home turf."

Operative parts there are the expectation for "limited war" as Hillary wouldn't want to escalate things beyond maybe some cruise missiles and bombings, undoubtedly involving stealth bombers on our part. Equipment he'd love to embarrass us with by shooting them down, as the Serbs managed, once, in the 1990's.

Especially if he managed to down more than one of them, "doubly good" in his book if he could deter American S&R efforts and capture the pilots with his own forces.

It also opens up all kinds of fun options for 2020 at that point as Hillary had risked Nuclear War with Russia, waged an embarrassing--and expensive as stealth bombers aren't cheap-- and "ineffectual" military campaign against the Russians "all over a bit of political pique." The material for 2020 would almost write itself here in the US. As for Russia, they get to demonstrate that they're still a force to be reckoned with, and that they have equipment (for sale) which other nations need to respect(and possibly buy). As well as just the general image boost of being able to "stand against the Americans."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2019, 06:25:13 PM »
From Seriati's link:
Quote
Some more numbers from the Mueller report help put the issue in perspective. Between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook identified 470 IRA-controlled accounts out of more than 1 billion active daily users. "The IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements," the report says, "and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000" — roughly 0.0004 percent of Facebook's ad revenue in 2016.

But from adage.com (https://adage.com/article/digital/russia-spent-1-25m-ads-acted-agency-mueller/312424) there is a claim that in the indictment announced in February 2018, Mueller's team claimed that the 13 Russian nationals (and the 3 Russian entities) were spending 1.25 million dollars per month:

Just to be clear, the numbers you quoted as "from my link" are in fact quotes from the Mueller report.  Maybe you should direct your belief in the discrepancy between the Mueller report and the indictment to Mueller's team.  That particular quote is on page 25 of part 1.  If you read the section it becomes clear that "may have reached 129 million people" is a reference to their total effort, which included 80k total posts only some portion of which were supportive of Trump.  They don't tell you what portion, my guess because that would undermine the point they want to make.  It is clear that they were operative long before they posted anything pro-Trump.

The reality is that they only confirmed 29 million people "reached" in total and that number includes posts that didn't support Trump or disparage Clinton.  That's a number that is absolute dwarfed by the amount of FB messages that actually played out during the election.  80k?  Wouldn't be surprised if the total posts didn't exceed that by a factor of 1000 or more.  What does it mean to be reached?  29 million got one or more posts, many of which had nothing to do with helping Trump or hurting Clinton?  How many got 3 or more?  Guessing quite a bit less.  Meanwhile how many political posts hit the average FB users mailbox over the same period?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  More (I had at least a dozen friends that average 6 or more political posts and forwards a day). 

It's just a fact, Russian "influence" was an infintismal drop in the "influence" bucket.  I'm sorry that causes you dissonance.

Quote
Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment.

That's not what the indictment said.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380529-Internet-Research-Agency-Indictment.html  Check out page 6, Section 11(b).  Their entire budget (including employee hundreds of people as alleged by Mueller's team) reach $1.25 million by June of 2016.  That's not the ad spend amount, nor is it an average spend.

On the other hand the total 2016 spending by all parties was massive.  $2.3 billion on just the Presidential election.  If you assume an even spend over 12 months (some spending was before, but there's a massive backload), then you get $191 million per month, the election in total by the way was at $6.5 billion, which works out to $541 million per month.

So, even when you pick your facts (and get them wrong) you've still barely identified a drop in the bucket.

Quote
Now, why would the creators.com article exclude the vast majority of the known funding of the Russian efforts during the 2016 election?

Answer, they didn't, they quoted the Mueller report not the misinterpretation of an activist group.

Again, quote battles are going to increase the lies and confusion if you don't take the time to actual parse the links.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 06:27:23 PM by Seriati »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2019, 06:29:17 PM »
Quote
DonaldD, I don't find that particularly responsive
Was it supposed to be responsive? You just posted a poorly researched article with conclusions that were convenient to your own position.  I just posted other articles, as easily searchable, that came to different conclusions.

I also later showed that your article misrepresented the scope of the Russian efforts, which were off by at least a factor of 100.

Read it again.  What I cited to is pulling Mueller's quotes and actual data.  What you cited to was a direct misrepresentation of what it was purported to reference

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2019, 06:36:41 PM »
Social media lets you engage with identified groups very precisely. A given ad campaign might reach only 500k people. If 80% of those people were in the three deciding states and effectively influenced the votes of 25% of them, that ad campaigned could be said to decide the election despite reaching only 0.4% of voters (please let my math be right). That assumes the that states in question would have been won by a different party without the extra-legal ad campaign but that's a very difficult thing to know.

NobleHunter, that's an incredibly sensible point.  Now ask yourself why that data isn't in the Mueller report.

I can tell you the answer.  It's not there because it didn't show that targeting.

Less you think I'm being partisan, it's a simple deduction.  Evidence of such targeting would be an element of collusion.  They went to great lengths in the report to walk though Manafort sending polling data to a "Russian" (who it turned out was not actually a Russian, and was in fact a long term employee of Manafort's whose more likely connections were Ukranian, or even western, but hey no one said Mueller had to prove his allegations).  They clearly looked at that angle and were desparate to show it - as it would have been evidence useful to establish conspiracy.  It's lack of inclusion should lead to the negative inference it wasn't helpful (or you could argue Weissman chose to let slide facts that he could have used to make his case).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2019, 09:53:21 AM »
Read it again.  What I cited to is pulling Mueller's quotes and actual data.  What you cited to was a direct misrepresentation of what it was purported to reference
Not true.  Yes, what you cited made reference to some of the Mueller report's findings.  However, where it goes wrong is using only the ad and YouTube buys in its analysis of the totality of Russian interference, and making its hand-waving conclusions based on those smallest of efforts, whereas the vast majority of Russian interference was not related to either.

Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment.
That's not what the indictment said.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380529-Internet-Research-Agency-Indictment.html  Check out page 6, Section 11(b).  Their entire budget (including employee hundreds of people as alleged by Mueller's team) reach $1.25 million by June of 2016.  That's not the ad spend amount, nor is it an average spend.
???
That is quite literally what the indictment stated, in the very section you reference, and which I quoted directly in yesterday's quote. I even bolded the reference to monthly budgets.  Nowhere does that section make reference June of 2016.  Maybe you assumed that monthly budget was consistent throughout the "project", as opposed to the monthly budget in place by the end of the election - but from where did you pull "June"?  Regardless, the words I literally quoted should have made it clear to you:
Quote
By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over 1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus payments.
At any rate, my point was simply that your linked article ignored the vast majority of Russian efforts (probably about 98%, financially) so it's analysis and conclusions are flawed at their root.  This doesn't disprove their hypothesis, but it clearly shows that they have not made a convincing argument.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2019, 10:31:05 AM »
Read it again.  What I cited to is pulling Mueller's quotes and actual data.  What you cited to was a direct misrepresentation of what it was purported to reference
Not true.  Yes, what you cited made reference to some of the Mueller report's findings.  However, where it goes wrong is using only the ad and YouTube buys in its analysis of the totality of Russian interference, and making its hand-waving conclusions based on those smallest of efforts, whereas the vast majority of Russian interference was not related to either.

It is true, what I cited to focuses on the actual report and data.  You still are not acknowledging that your source's implication of a $1.25 million per month ad effort was a misrepresentation?  Here's the paragraphs from the indictment that set out that number.  You'll note the US operation is "part" an the effort, that included efforts in other places including inside the Russian Federation, and that the total budget for the project hit $1.25 in September (my bad on June, it's actually the later date to which they ramped up to that amount).

Quote
CONCORD funded the ORGANIZATION as part of a larger interference operation that it referred to as "Project Lakhta." Project Lakhta had multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States.

By in or around September 2016, the budget for Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over 1,250,000 US. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus
payments.

The fact is that your source directly implied a $1.25 million US focused ad campaign, and that is misleading interpretation, false information and a lie.  There's no effort to actually parse the US portion or US focus in the indictment, or the portion that focuses on ad campaigns, and Mueller's report explicitly included that FaceBook determined the total ad buy from the organization in the indictment was about $100k.  Flat out that's a completely accurate statement.

Quote
Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment.
That's not what the indictment said.
???
That is quite literally what the indictment stated, in the very section you reference, and which I quoted directly in yesterday's quote. I even bolded the reference to monthly budgets.

I note you didn't bold the "on ad campaigns," which is the part that is a lie.  Deception is the word of the day.  I think I've laid out a clear refutation of the inference in the sentence of above.  Certainly, I don't see any reason for you to continue to claim its truthful without providing direct evidence that there was an established $1.25 million per month US focused ads (which if true Mueller's report would have included instead of the $100k (in total) reference it did include).

Quote
Nowhere does that section make reference June of 2016.

That's correct, it actually says it was ramping up through September to that amount, which means in June it was even lower.

Quote
At any rate, my point was simply that your linked article ignored the vast majority of Russian efforts (probably about 98%, financially) so it's analysis and conclusions are flawed at their root.  This doesn't disprove their hypothesis, but it clearly shows that they have not made a convincing argument.

The article I cited was specifically focused on the actual impact of the Russian influence.  It cited to Mueller's statements, and to the conclusions of social media companies and the total size of their user activity.  All of which is facts (other than Mueller's statements - which have not been tested on an adversarial basis).

The citation you included as explained above includes an unspecified amount of non-US focused activity, and large amount of non-Ad factors.  If you really want to go there, we're talking about 80k posts (not ads) on FB, which I walked through above, that were found to have reached 29 million people with absolutely no facts provided about how many reached any one person.  I note Mueller's report cites things like the following:

Quote
The First known IRA advertisement explicitly endorsing the Trump Campaign was
purchased on April 19, 2016. The IRA bought an advertisement for its Instagram account "Tea
Party News" asking U.S. persons to help them "make a patriotic team of young Trump supporters"
by uploading photos with the hashtag "#KIDS4TRUMP."

Take a look at the report.  The stuff Mueller cites to generally wouldn't move any needles and would generally be indistinguishable from what was already flooding social media.  he made absolutely no efforts to describe statistically the support level for Trump (odd omission that should be read against him), or to describe the reach of any particular efforts or messages (also an add omission that should be read against him).

There's no factual basis to conclude this stuff was significant. 

Now if you want to talk about the real Russian influences there are two.  First, assuming they were in fact behind the DNC and Hillary hacks, those releases of truthful information did a lot of damage to Hillary's chances.  Second, the Democrats have been completely complicit in helping the Russians achieve their primary goal of sowing dissent and calling into question our institutions.  The Democrats have assigned a near mythological power to Russian influence that didn't exist, solely to avoid the cognitive dissonance inherent in realizing that as unpopular as Trump is, Hillary is less popular and Democrat policies are not fundamentally more liked that Republican ones.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2019, 10:48:18 AM »
Quote
It is true, what I cited to focuses on the actual report and data.  You still are not acknowledging that your source's implication of a $1.25 million per month ad effort was a misrepresentation? 
My source?  That quote is from the link you yourself provided to the actual text of the indictment;D

Seriously, go to your link, go to page 6, section 11.b as you pointed out, and cut and paste that section in your next response.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2019, 10:52:24 AM »
The Democrats have assigned a near mythological power to Russian influence that didn't exist, solely to avoid the cognitive dissonance inherent in realizing that as unpopular as Trump is, Hillary is less popular and Democrat policies are not fundamentally more liked that Republican ones.

I guess you missed the part where Clinton won the popular vote? By the results of the only poll that matters, Clinton was more popular.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2019, 10:52:39 AM »
OK, my bad, the project "Lakhta" did span multiple countries, not just the US, and I did not catch that detail.  My apologies - I should have caught that earlier.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2019, 12:42:55 PM »
The Democrats have assigned a near mythological power to Russian influence that didn't exist, solely to avoid the cognitive dissonance inherent in realizing that as unpopular as Trump is, Hillary is less popular and Democrat policies are not fundamentally more liked that Republican ones.

I guess you missed the part where Clinton won the popular vote? By the results of the only poll that matters, Clinton was more popular.

I didn't miss it, and that's one fair interpretation.  I've also looked at the state by state numbers and the margins of victory, Hillary's popular vote margin really comes down to winning CA by a lot (margin in victory in CA is bigger than Hillary's total margin of victory) and winning by a lot in certain Democratic strongholds, specifically, Illinois, MD, NY and NJ come to mind.  But margin of victory with the base isn't really what makes a good President.

I'll revise to say, Clinton was popular with hardcore Democratic base voters, but was not popular with independents, Republicans or moderates.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2019, 01:28:13 PM »
I'll revise to say, Clinton was popular with hardcore Democratic base voters, but was not popular with independents, Republicans or moderates.

More like, those hardcore base voters didn't see any other reasonable option and so felt they had to pick her. That might be what you meant, but the word 'popular' could be taken to mean 'people were enthusiastic about her', which compared to Obama was certainly not the case.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2019, 03:29:25 PM »
The Democrats have assigned a near mythological power to Russian influence that didn't exist, solely to avoid the cognitive dissonance inherent in realizing that as unpopular as Trump is, Hillary is less popular and Democrat policies are not fundamentally more liked that Republican ones.

I guess you missed the part where Clinton won the popular vote? By the results of the only poll that matters, Clinton was more popular.

Ah, but a majority voted for somebody other than Hillary, and unlike her dear Husband who also never won a majority of the vote in either race(1992 or 1996), there was no major third party "spoiler" around to prevent another candidate from winning the EC out from under her. (It should also be noted, Bush 43 did win a popular majority in 2004. It will be interesting to see if Trump manages a comparable feat)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2019, 03:30:57 PM »
I'll revise to say, Clinton was popular with hardcore Democratic base voters, but was not popular with independents, Republicans or moderates.

More like, those hardcore base voters didn't see any other reasonable option and so felt they had to pick her. That might be what you meant, but the word 'popular' could be taken to mean 'people were enthusiastic about her', which compared to Obama was certainly not the case.

Or that winning a plurality in the popular vote means a majority of Americans wanted her as President. They clearly didn't.

More people voted for Trump (in both raw numbers, and as a % of the vote) in 2016 than voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. And IIRC, his numbers(as a percentile) in 1996 barely beat Trump's from 2016.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 03:33:44 PM by TheDeamon »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2019, 04:06:20 PM »
Ah, but a majority voted for somebody other than Hillary, and unlike her dear Husband who also never won a majority of the vote in either race(1992 or 1996), there was no major third party "spoiler" around to prevent another candidate from winning the EC out from under her. (It should also be noted, Bush 43 did win a popular majority in 2004. It will be interesting to see if Trump manages a comparable feat)

And? Trump failed to secure even a plurality of voters. I was objecting to the claim that Clinton was less popular than Trump. That she failed to secure a majority of votes doesn't somehow make Trump more popular than her.

PS Given that 40%-ish of the vote enough to secure majority government in Canada, I don't have much use for quibbling over a majority vs plurality of the votes.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2019, 05:36:14 PM »
NH, you argue technicalities rather than will of the people.

Both won the election being more hated than loved. Both betrayed their core constituents, who licked the boot and loved their oppressors more.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2019, 02:56:59 AM »
I didn't miss it, and that's one fair interpretation.  I've also looked at the state by state numbers and the margins of victory, Hillary's popular vote margin really comes down to winning CA by a lot (margin in victory in CA is bigger than Hillary's total margin of victory) and winning by a lot in certain Democratic strongholds, specifically, Illinois, MD, NY and NJ come to mind.  But margin of victory with the base isn't really what makes a good President.

It is amazing how her EC loss while winning the Popular vote looks EXACTLY like the description of reasons people have given in the past for why you DO have an electoral college.

The Democrats in 2016 got a brutal wakeup call that there are other parts of the country they need to pay attention to rather than just the Metroplexes of a handful of states.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2019, 03:34:36 AM »
I miss the times when presidents ran the table. I think it was much better for us.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2019, 11:36:28 AM »
NH, you argue technicalities rather than will of the people.

Both won the election being more hated than loved. Both betrayed their core constituents, who licked the boot and loved their oppressors more.

If no one loved their oppressors, every election would be decided by Congress.