2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Aerin]

Honest question. When it comes to hacking, what "actual evidence" is there to show?

[Krandor]

Since the hacking we're talking about appears to mostly be a phishing scam (at least from what is publicly known), really just the IP addresses used to access the accounts.

[Niiro]

Honest question. When it comes to hacking, what "actual evidence" is there to show?

Sharing the information that lead to the claims being made pretty much anonymously would be a start.

[NynJa]

Since the hacking we're talking about appears to mostly be a phishing scam (at least from what is publicly known), really just the IP addresses used to access the accounts.

Inb4 americans did it and used a russian proxy

[arus2001]

Even if we had video of Putin doing it himself, people would still doubt because anyone but Hillary.

[Krandor]

Reading some I guess at least in the case of the DNC hack it was more then just the dumb ass phishing attempt Podesta fell for and involved actual malware getting onto the system that are favorites of some known Russian groups.

[Byrthnoth]

How do intelligence agencies know anything they know?

Being skeptical is fine, but it's not like this info is showing up on Breitbart or Deadspin or something.

[kuronosan]

I'm just skeptical because it sounds like a bad movie plot.

[Kincard]

All I'm getting from this is that Russia got access to some private correspondence, and then published it via Wikileaks. That's it. The rest was Americans being stupid. That really doesn't seem like an outlandish story to me.

[Krandor]

But when the news can twist that into a headline about how Russia hacked the election, who cares what the actual facts are?

[Day]

And lets be real did it really impact the election? More than say, Hillary not visiting WI once? I ask my friends that aren't internet dwellers and they barely know what a 'wikileak' is lol.

All I know is CIA is apparently leaking like a 96 Dodge Neon oil pan to the media lately, sure are lots of "anon sources" and no official report. In fact the last official statements directly conflict with the latest WaPo pieces.

I'm pretty sure the "Former CIA" agent is this guy:

Spoiler: show

[Kincard]

I have no doubt it impacted the election on some level, because it doesn't matter what was actually in the leak, what mattered was optics. It fed into the notion that Clinton was corrupt which is an easy go-to saying for people who didn't like her anyway and it reinforces the general narrative. But if you actually pressed most people on the issue they know fuckall why Clinton is "corrupt", they just mumble something about muhemails.

There's no doubt that Russia obviously had a slant when they selectively gave information to Wikileaks (or possibly Wikileaks selectively published), but the focus here should be on why so many Americans fell for this particular piece of propaganda when say, for example, Bolivia's President constantly talks how opposing evil American imperialism and all that but most Americans don't care to listen to his reasoning. I'm sure it's a mystery why some people might be sympathetic to the strongman who has a record of opposing LGBT rights and purportedly champions "traditional family values".

[Day]

Sure maybe it had like some kind of measurable impact, like .05% I don't know how you would begin to try to decipher that.

The leaks were real emails so I don't accept that they were "propaganda" they were the truth no matter how they were obtained.

I still think you vastly overestimate how much of the electorate is "tuned in" to news/internet/wikileaks drama.

Hillary campaign made some massive mistakes, putting like a million dollars near the end into Chicago/New Orleans to try to pump up popular vote instead of listening to the one team member all but begging her to visit the rust belt.

My concern is all the headlines reading "Russians hacked the election" which is hella misleading to anyone just skimming headlines. That's not really at all what happened. Seems like some kinda shady business being perpetuated to hopefully effect the Electoral College from all the hullabaloo I"m seeing going on now.

[Krandor]

Considering how tight the races were in various states it's reasonable to assume it had some kind of affect on the election results.

That said, this entire thing is (imo) 100% about the need for sensationalist headlines. Calling it an "election hack" is wildly irresponsible journalism, but that's the situation we're in now with how desperate assorted media sources are for attention.

[Headspace]

Sure maybe it had like some kind of measurable impact, like .05% I don't know how you would begin to try to decipher that.

The leaks were real emails so I don't accept that they were "propaganda" they were the truth no matter how they were obtained.

I still think you vastly overestimate how much of the electorate is "tuned in" to news/internet/wikileaks drama.

Hillary campaign made some massive mistakes, putting like a million dollars near the end into Chicago/New Orleans to try to pump up popular vote instead of listening to the one team member all but begging her to visit the rust belt.

My concern is all the headlines reading "Russians hacked the election" which is hella misleading to anyone just skimming headlines. That's not really at all what happened. Seems like some kinda shady business being perpetuated to hopefully effect the Electoral College from all the hullabaloo I"m seeing going on now.

Maybe Hillary ran a shit campaign AND the leaked emails impacted the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyven]

Maybe Hillary ran a shit campaign AND the leaked emails impacted the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's impossible because only 1 factor can ever be considered at a time no matter what Joe Rogan and his Canadian professor friend say.

[Kincard]

what the fuck did Headspace just post something sane

Anyway, the emails themselves are not propaganda, how they were published were used that way, however ("look at these scandalous emails, they had to be secretly published through wikileaks" etc). It was also "propaganda" in the sense that people used it to bludgeon Clinton with retarded quote mines.

Also it isn't necessary that said voters tune in specifically to the wikileaks thing, the way it was reported contributed to the overall narrative. The news stations kept talking about the existence of the emails, but rarely talked about what was actually in them.

I don't think I or most people in this thread would contest that the Clinton campaign made some idiotic decisions. And like I said, I agree that the way this Russian thing is being reported is more of the same misleading sensationalist headline shit.

[Niiro]

Sure maybe it had like some kind of measurable impact, like .05% I don't know how you would begin to try to decipher that.

The leaks were real emails so I don't accept that they were "propaganda" they were the truth no matter how they were obtained.

I still think you vastly overestimate how much of the electorate is "tuned in" to news/internet/wikileaks drama.

More time was spent covering the email scandal in the media than all policy discussion combined.

[Ragnus]

i think a conventional candidate in the mold of Rubio or Romney or Dubya would have soundly beaten Hillary in the popular vote and smashed her in the EC. people didn't realize just how unpopular she was and how that unpopularity would grow during both the primaries and the general, how damaging the FBI investigation that was supposed to go away but never went away would prove, and how many Rust Belt voters were alienated from the Democratic Party during the Obama administration. and structurally speaking the American system is designed around equilibrium; it is very difficult for any party to win 3 presidential elections in a row, none the less one putting forward such a damaged candidate. Trump / Cruz were probably the only major candidates she actually could have beaten.

This I'll actually agree with you on, because even Clinton's campaign seemingly admitted this. They were shitting themselves that Rubio was going to get the nomination.

Low favorability didn't mean shit for Trump, but Trump also didn't have a massive smear campaign that's been levied against him for the last 30 years. Most of Clinton's bump in favorability, from what I saw, came from directly comparing her to Trump.

[Day]

Still they were hardly covered imo, especially not the contents. I assume because some of them exposed the collusion with DNC. More time was spent on left/MSM attacking Trump than anything else. Fox was covering emails a bit more but still mostly attacking Hillary so we really heard almost no policy, which is shameful in itself.

Media is in such shambles right now. I don't know if they are ever going to fully recover from 2016.