General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Yorker October 10 issue: How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump
......................................................................................
Her case is based on a growing body of knowledge about the electronic warfare waged by Russian trolls and hackerswhom she terms discourse saboteursand on five decades worth of academic studies about what kinds of persuasion can influence voters, and under what circumstances. Democracies around the world, she told me, have begun to realize that subverting an election doesnt require tampering with voting machines. Extensive studies of past campaigns, Jamieson said, have demonstrated that you can affect people, who then change their decision, and that alters the outcome. She continued, Im not arguing that Russians pulled the voting levers. Im arguing that they persuaded enough people to either vote a certain way or not vote at all.
......................................................................................
The dynamic recurred in the third debate, on October 19th, which 71.6 million people watched. When Trump accused Clinton of favoring open borders, she denied it, but the moderator, Chris Wallace, challenged her by citing a snippet from a speech that she had given, in 2013, to a Brazilian bank: My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. Again, there was no mention of the fact that the speech had been stolen by a hostile foreign power; Wallace said that the quotation had come from WikiLeaks. The clear implication of Wallaces question was that Clinton had been hiding her true beliefs, and Trump said to him, Thank you! His supporters in the audience laughed. Clinton said that the phrase had been taken out of context: shed been referring not to immigrants but to an open-bordered electric grid with Latin America. She tried to draw attention to Russias role in hacking the speech, but Trump mocked her for accusing Putin, and joked, That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders. He then warned the audience that, if Clinton were elected, Syrians and other immigrants would pour into our country.
The fact-checking organization PolitiFact later concluded that Trump had incorrectly characterized Clintons speech, but the damage had been done. Jamiesons research indicated that viewers who watched the second and third debates subsequently saw Clinton as less forthright, and Trump as more forthright. Among people who did not watch the debates, Clintons reputation was not damaged in this way. During the weeks that the debates took place, the moderators and the media became consumed by an anti-Clinton narrative driven by Russian hackers. In Cyberwar, Jamieson writes, The stolen goods lent credibility to those moderator queries.
..........................................................................................
Joel Benenson, the Clinton pollster, was stunned when he learned, from the July indictment, that the Russians had stolen his campaigns internal modelling. I saw it and said, Holy shit! he told me. Among the proprietary information that the Russian hackers could have obtained, he said, was campaign data showing that, late in the summer of 2016, in battleground states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, an unusually high proportion of residents whose demographic and voting profiles identified them as likely Democrats were Hillary defectors: people so unhappy with Clinton that they were considering voting for a third-party candidate. The Clinton campaign had a plan for winning back these voters. Benenson explained that any Clinton opponent who stole this data would surely have realized that the best way to counter the plan was to bombard those voters with negative information about Clinton. All they need to do is keep that person where they are, he said, which is far easier than persuading a voter to switch candidates. Many critics have accused Clinton of taking Michigan and Wisconsin for granted and spending virtually no time there. But Benenson said that, if a covert social-media campaign targeting Hillary defectors was indeed launched in battleground states, it might well have changed the outcome of the election.
Benenson said, We lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsinthree states of our Blue Wallby about eighty thousand votes. Six hundred and sixty thousand votes were cast in those three states for third-party candidates. Winning those three states would have got us to two hundred and seventy-eight electoral votes. In other words, if only twelve per cent of those third-party voters were persuaded by Russian propagandabased on hacked Clinton-campaign analyticsnot to vote for Clinton, then Jamiesons theory could be valid.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
Ninga
(8,275 posts)personal network of family and friends to vote.
dalton99a
(81,526 posts)Johnny2X2X
(19,073 posts)I have yet to see real analysis done of what was obviously happening. The campaign was coordinating their message and attacks daily with Russian generated fake news stories being pushed on social media. I'd like to see a group study what fake stories were trending vs what Trump's message was on a daily or even hourly basis throughout the campaign. It was more than obvious that the Russians were generating news stories in complete synchronicity with Trump's message. And sometimes Trump would talk about it first and be backed up right away by this Fake News and sometimes it was the other way around, Trump would have a rally discussing this evenings trending fake news stories. And they were clever enough to make the fake news stories expand on the real ones about Hillary, that was easy.
Here's what was obvious to me. Trump's campaign and the Russians generating the fake Facebook stories were talking on a daily basis. The Trump campaign was likely vetting and approving the content and timing of a lot of the stories so that Trump could always be talking about things that were on the minds of these targeted voters because they had just read or shared Fake News about them, or that whatever he said would always be backed up when they checked their Facebook feed that night. A lot of people unfriended or stopped following people of Facebook, I didn't I saw all the crazy stuff my Trump inclined friends were sharing and in many cases my Bernie or bust friends and family too. I tried to combat them, but it was a little overwhelming at times. And it was impossible to miss that Trump and these stories were playing off each other non stop.