[helene_t]

 StevenG, on 2017-January-07, 08:59, said:

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

Probably very little. OTOH "very little" could well be significant. A fraction of a percentage point could have been enough to alter the EC majority.

It's like a bridge tournament where you end 2nd with 0.05% matchpoints behind the winner. Avoiding one or two of the many stupid mistakes you made would have been enough. Here, if just Sanders had been a bit less negative in his primary campaign, if just Hillary had devoted some attention to evangelical communities or fly-over states. If just Hillary hadn't caught pneumonia. If just Comey had waited until after the election. If just .....

[kenberg]

 StevenG, on 2017-January-07, 08:59, said:

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

First my simple, probably overly simple, view. We are responsible for the choices that we make.

I think this over-simplified view is useful. Obviously politicians lie, we have always had to deal with that. Modern technology complicates matters a good deal. We have to address the possibilities for covert foreign intervention.. This goes far beyond Putin/Assange. We have to think through the dangers and how to deal with them. Hacking is one issue, obviously. Fake news is another. We cannot have a government agency that says "this news is fake" or "this news is real". A certain level of intelligence is required of the voters. I recently got a phone call from "my grandson". I thought that scam died off a few years back. We never got to the part where I was supposed to send money. And when the "IRS" called to tell me about the urgent need to contact them we sent the phone number to the real IRS. But scams get more sophisticated. And, of course, to sway an election it might suffice to convince the truly gullible that one of the candidates is running a child sex ring. I suppose, back in the 1952 race that I mentioned, there were some who thought Stevenson was a communist.

It's a problem.

Part, although just part, of the solution goes like this: I can recognize the IRS scam because I pay my taxes, no gimmicks. The only time there was an issue was when I made an error, and after the error was corrected they owed me money. With the Comey thing, I gave my thoughts earlier. When the FBI first wanted the HC emails, she needed to put out the word: We will give them everything. If it is a cookie recipe I sent to Chelsea, they are ro get it. Everything. They are to get everything. This approach will not always work, but it's a good start. What is needed is for a scam to be easily identifiable as a scam by reasonable people.

But I think it is a real problem. "Nobody has proved that it affected the election" is a pitifully weak response.

[Al_U_Card]

 kenberg, on 2017-January-07, 08:48, said:

The reflections above on growing up in the Middle East got me to making historical comparisons here in the US. As a 13 year old I followed the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaigns of 1952. I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on television explaining that Stevenson was a Commie. Uh huh. But never did Adlai Stevenson talk about what a great guy Josef Stalin was. Twenty years later we had Watergate. Whatever Nixon's role was, I am pretty sure he never said that breaking into the DNC headquarters was really a good thing and that he hoped that there would be more of it.

We are making a real break with history here. You can say that I am living in the past, but I still regard breaking into offices. physical or cyber, as a bad thing. And I liked hearing a Republican (I forget which one) say "I am not from the branch of the party that regards Vladimir Putin as our friend".

Along these lines, I thought the column below nicely captured some of the current thinking (thinking?)
https://www.washingt...m=.14a74a35fd95

Learning from experience is all about pattern recognition. Trump wants to take on China. Would Russia as an adversary aid this? Is the Intelligence establishment more comfortable with Russia or China as main opponent? Trump failing in one of the main legs of his platform must certainly entice his political foes to try and ensure that Russia remains on the enemy list.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-January-07, 10:46, said:

I suppose, back in the 1952 race that I mentioned, there were some who thought Stevenson was a communist.

We have a substantial amount of people who still believe that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is the communist. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Vampyr]

Do you know, it is easy to forget now many Americans are one-issue voters (no points for guessing what that issue is.) I am sure that some not-insignificant number of these voters find Trump otherwise abhorrent. I recently read or heard a quote from a Trump voter whose husband needs an organ transplant. She hopes that Trump will not do away with Obamacare.

[kenberg]

 Vampyr, on 2017-January-07, 13:50, said:

Do you know, it is easy to forget now many Americans are one-issue voters (no points for guessing what that issue is.) I am sure that some not-insignificant number of these voters find Trump otherwise abhorrent. I recently read or heard a quote from a Trump voter whose husband needs an organ transplant. She hopes that Trump will not do away with Obamacare.

Yes, I saw, perhaps, the same story. A liver transplant I think. And yes, some are just on one issue. Although Trump is sort of an odd choice to trust on that.

Some zillion years or so ago there was this movie, Network, where everyone opens a window and shouts "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". That seems to me to be a lot what's going on. I was being tested the other day for Lyme disease (precautionary, we have a lot of it around here), and the nurse was saying "When we were young we played in the grass all the time. We didn't get Lyme disease." She probably voted for Trump. He will build a wall and keep out the ticks. It will be really terrific, I promise you.
Everyone liked that scene from the movie. I found it a bit ominous.

[hrothgar]

If I had to place bets, I'd say that

1. The Russian government attempted to influence the US presidential elections by hacking US politicians and political parites and selectively leaking information

2. This activity probably did not have a decisive impact on the election. (I think that the Comey leak was far more significant)

3. The US government has done equivalent stuff in the Ukraine

From my perspective, the fact this this happened is far less troublesome that Trump's reaction

[jogs]

The elitist progressive left has imposed its views onto the masses. While all other views are subjected to PC censorship. Well, there's a new sheriff in town. All views will be heard. Free speech for all.

[jogs]

The progressive Hollywood left is demanding Trump governs from the left.

http://www.hollywood...ct-trump-960340

They lost. Traditionally the party in power loses seats during the mid-term elections. I predict that republicans will win seats in 2018 and Trump will be reelected in 2020. Trump will have the backs of the US middle class, not the elitist progressive left.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 12:37, said:

First, to what "misinformation from the state" do you refer?

You must surely be aware of many times the government has lied for one reason or another. I trust you to be sensible enough not to believe that this only happens in wild conspiracy theories.

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 12:37, said:

Second, are you now arguing that personal lack of specific knowledge makes all likelihoods equivalent (because that's what it sounds like)?

Perhaps you can point out where I spoke about equally likelihood because I do not recall doing so. I did talk about making some decisions based on balance of probabilities, which is quite the opposite. In areas where no evidence has been provided it would be strange for anyone familiar with the scientific method to rule out reasonable possibilities. That is not the same as saying that every possibility is equally likely. if you want me to argue against you that the Russians are not responsible then you have chosen the wrong poster! But if you want to try to prove to me the secret motivations of specific figures that neither of us know personally, which is where we started, well that is something I take a little issue with.

 StevenG, on 2017-January-07, 08:59, said:

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.

According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-January-07, 16:25, said:

The elitist progressive left bourgeoisie has imposed its views onto the masses proletariat. While all other views are subjected to PC censorship. Well, there's a new sheriff in town, who wants to deputize Vladimir Putin. The Party's views All views will be heard. Free speech for all who join the Party.

FYP

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-January-07, 17:26, said:

You must surely be aware of many times the government has lied for one reason or another. I trust you to be sensible enough not to believe that this only happens in wild conspiracy theories.

Do you really think that Nixon denying going into Cambodia is the same as having numerous intelligent agencies announce Russia was responsible for the hacking?


Perhaps you can point out where I spoke about equally likelihood because I do not recall doing so. I did talk about making some decisions based on balance of probabilities, which is quite the opposite. In areas where no evidence has been provided it would be strange for anyone familiar with the scientific method to rule out reasonable possibilities. That is not the same as saying that every possibility is equally likely. if you want me to argue against you that the Russians are not responsible then you have chosen the wrong poster! But if you want to try to prove to me the secret motivations of specific figures that neither of us know personally, which is where we started, well that is something I take a little issue with.

That's why I asked. You seemed to be implying that due to the fact we cannot know Assange's intentions that we must give equal weight to his views as well as our own intelligence experts. I think that is a ridiculous position and wanted to give you a chance to clarify if I misunderstood.


According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

The main reason for Clinton's loss is that she could not get people out to the polls to vote for her - it would make more sense to poll Democratic voters who stayed home for their reasons for not voting to find out if there was sufficient influence from outside sources.

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-January-07, 17:26, said:

According to the polls, the effect of Comey was around 4 percentage points, more than enough to have made a significant impact on the result. The effect of the hacking, leaks and fake news is much more difficult to pin down because it is diffused. I would agree with hrothgar that it was probably a lesser effect than that of Comey though.

It would be interesting to have a deeper understanding here.

Smoe possible reasons for the drop in support after the Comey letter

1. Voters believed this showed, to a greater extent than before, that Clinton had been careless with classified material.

2. Voters thought that Clinton was about to be indicted.

3. Voters viewed Clinton as incapable of dealing with the email issue and, on that basis, lost trust in her ability to deal with issues in general.


I suppose some would go with each of these reasons, and for that matter some would have other reasons. But 3. seems to me to be a big one. People want a president who can solve a problem so that it stays solved.

Decisions are always partly based on logic, partly on intuition, or empathy, or emotion, whatever you want to call it. Certainly that is true of me, and I think anyone who thinks that they decide solely on logic is fooling himself. Sixty years ago a friend summarized this as "I sometimes believe things because I can prove them, I sometimes can prove things because I believe them". I suspect voters made an intuitive judgment of how well she handled the email problem rather than a logical judgment of her legal culpability.

But applying the intuitive/logical distinction to myself, it would be interesting to have some concrete evidence.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-January-08, 13:34, said:

It would be interesting to have a deeper understanding here.

Smoe possible reasons for the drop in support after the Comey letter

1. Voters believed this showed, to a greater extent than before, that Clinton had been careless with classified material.

2. Voters thought that Clinton was about to be indicted.

3. Voters viewed Clinton as incapable of dealing with the email issue and, on that basis, lost trust in her ability to deal with issues in general.


I suppose some would go with each of these reasons, and for that matter some would have other reasons. But 3. seems to me to be a big one. People want a president who can solve a problem so that it stays solved.

Decisions are always partly based on logic, partly on intuition, or empathy, or emotion, whatever you want to call it. Certainly that is true of me, and I think anyone who thinks that they decide solely on logic is fooling himself. Sixty years ago a friend summarized this as "I sometimes believe things because I can prove them, I sometimes can prove things because I believe them". I suspect voters made an intuitive judgment of how well she handled the email problem rather than a logical judgment of her legal culpability.

But applying the intuitive/logical distinction to myself, it would be interesting to have some concrete evidence.

How could we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-08, 17:22, said:

How could we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump?

Minnesota did not go for Trump! Ventura might be a little difficult to explain. For a while at least, there were a fair number of people who supported him.

As I mentioned earlier, people responded enthusiastically to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" scene from Network. But I think that the attitude expressed there leads to, well, is part of the explanation for, Trump.
Someone who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore may be ripe for the picking.

There are many reasons. And any joking aside, it's important to understand these reasons.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-January-08, 20:21, said:

Minnesota did not go for Trump! Ventura might be a little difficult to explain. For a while at least, there were a fair number of people who supported him.

As I mentioned earlier, people responded enthusiastically to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" scene from Network. But I think that the attitude expressed there leads to, well, is part of the explanation for, Trump.
Someone who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore may be ripe for the picking.

There are many reasons. And any joking aside, it's important to understand these reasons.

I confused Wisconsin with Minnesota. My mistake.

[ldrews]

When the Electoral College and 85% of the counties had a majority vote for Trump it is not an aberration. And unless you think approximately half of the voting public are actual idiots for voting for Trump, then there must be a significant message there. The Democrats/liberals had better understand the message and the reasons if they ever want to regain power.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-08, 22:14, said:

I confused Wisconsin with Minnesota. My mistake.

Amend your original comment to read "How can we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jessie Ventura and Al Franken?'

Then your comment is correct and makes perfect sense.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-08, 22:14, said:

I confused Wisconsin with Minnesota. My mistake.

Wisconsin: Cheese
Iowa: Corn
Minnesota: Babe the Blue Ox.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-08, 11:54, said:

Do you really think that Nixon denying going into Cambodia is the same as having numerous intelligent agencies announce Russia was responsible for the hacking?

Is that really the only example you can think of? Even before the word disinformation entered the wider English usage following Reagan's campaign against Gaddafi, we had such things as the U2 incident, the deal regarding Turkish bases after Cuba, the Gulf of Tonkin (probably, it has not been confirmed), the Shah and the Soviet-Afghan War. There are most likely many better examples too but I am hardly an expert on American history. You really ought to know far more examples than me.

 kenberg, on 2017-January-08, 13:34, said:

Smoe possible reasons for the drop in support after the Comey letter

Sometimes you are bound by your own way of thinking Ken. Whilst there is usually logic of sorts behind decisions, a large portion of the population decide on an emotional level rather than for specific reasons as given in your list. If the Comey release simply gave enough of this sub-group a negative feeling towards Clinton it is likely to have been significant on its own. Add to that the change in tone of the media coverage and the subsequent inability of her campaign to get their message across and you have some idea of where the swing might have come from, quite aside from logical arguments.

 ldrews, on 2017-January-08, 22:16, said:

When the Electoral College and 85% of the counties had a majority vote for Trump it is not an aberration. And unless you think approximately half of the voting public are actual idiots for voting for Trump, then there must be a significant message there. The Democrats/liberals had better understand the message and the reasons if they ever want to regain power.

Before you take too much stock from your (slightly incorrect) county figure you might want to go to Fact Checker, not that that is a popular website for Trump supporters. What do you think the message is that well over half of voters chose HC? Do you feel Republicans/white supremacists need to try and understand this message too?