• New Registration

    To become a member of JackpineRadicals please see post https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/new-members/

Home Main Forums 2018 Elections Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.

  • UnicornOnTheCob (1601 posts)
    Profile photo of UnicornOnTheCob

    Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.

    Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.
    Kevin Drum
    Mother Jones

    This is exactly backward. The fact that the election was so close means that lots of things might have tipped the election all by themselves. The Russian hacking is one of them. Consider Bierman and Bennett’s own case:

    Extensive news coverage of the how the leaked emails showed political machinations by Democratic Party operatives often drowned out Clinton’s agenda….English-language news channel Russia Today…posted a video on YouTube in early November, for example. Called “Trump Will Not Be Permitted to Win,” it featured Julian Assange, the fugitive founder of WikiLeaks, and was watched 2.2 million times….U.S. intelligence officials say anti-Clinton stories and posts flooded social media from the Internet Research Agency near St. Petersburg, which the report described as a network of “professional trolls” led by a Putin ally.

    That’s a lot of stuff! Does it seem likely that all of this, plus the fact that it kept Clinton’s email woes front and center, made a difference of 1 percent in a few swing states? Sure, I’d say so. Did other things make a difference too? Yes indeed. But given how close the election was, there’s a pretty good chance that Putin’s campaign of cyber-chaos had enough oomph to swing things all by itself.

    I’m a little surprised this hasn’t produced a little more panic. In the United States I understand why it hasn’t: Democrats don’t want to sound like sore losers and Republicans don’t care as long as their guy won. But what about the rest of the world? It’s been common knowledge for a while that Russia does this kind of stuff, but their actions in the US election represent a quantum leap in how far they’re willing to go. And there’s not much doubt that Putin will keep at it.


    At this rate, we’re going to need a section of the site called “Shit Kevin Drum Says”. So, let’s break this down. Assuming for the moment that the Russian government was behind the “election hacks”, which to my knowledge has yet to be substantiated beyond intelligence “assessments”, let’s remind ourselves of what we think the Russians did.

    One, they supposedly planted fake news stories that made Clinton or the Democrats look bad. OK, but how on earth would you substantiate the impact of this, especially when you consider that nearly the entirety of US talk radio stations and Fox News – a 24/7 propaganda network cranks out false news every day of the year for the past few decades?

    Two, and this is the good one, the Russians supposedly stole actual emails from Clinton / DNC operatives, supposedly leaked them to Wikileaks, and then the press reported on them because these factual emails were actually of interest to the public.

    Let me repeat that last part, reporting on the Podesta emails was in the public interest, not just about stirring up shit. People had a right to know where Hillary Clinton actually stood on fracking. People had a right to know the contents of Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches. The public had a right to know that the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign against the Sanders campaign in the primary.

    Granted we still don’t have proof that Russia gave the Podesta emails to Wikileaks, but for the sake of argument let’s say we did. Even if Russia had given the emails, the public interest served in reporting on them would be no different than if a DNC staffer had leaked the emails to the New York Times.

    And finally, yes the email leaks were an embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, but which revelations in those documents came as a surprise to anyone? Did anyone NOT know that Hillary Clinton was a supporter of fracking? Did anyone not know that Hillary Clinton said things she didn’t want the public to hear in her speeches to Wall Street? Prior to the email leaks, was there any question that the DNC was favoring the Clinton campaign above O’Malley and Sanders?

    I think the only legitimately new piece of information that came out of the Podesta emails was that Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign, which got her booted from CNN, but oddly not from the DNC.

    So, Drum’s thesis for Vladimir Putin getting Trump elected was that he supposedly personally ordered the hacking then leaking of non-falsified emails that contained information that was in the public interest to see that proved some things voters already knew. Really, the complaint here is that the timing was lousy.

    Here’s a better thesis – Hillary Clinton was a deeply unpopular candidate who was out of step with the electorate and the progressive base was legitimately feeling burned by the Democratic Party. That was the case before the emails and that was the case after the emails.

    OCMI, Bearian, hippiechick and 14 othersnevereVereven, ThinkingANew, jdpriestly, Pastiche, djean111, graycat, 99thMonkey, Doremus Jessup, Eggar, Mom Cat, Sadie, Bubzer, broiles, mmonk like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
9 replies
  • Bubzer (188 posts)
    Profile photo of Bubzer

    1. I would add to this…

    … That the election was Hillary’s to lose. Meaning, she could have and should have won. She had to put effort into losing to lose this one… and that is exactly what she did.

    She, and her campaign, set out to drive distance between themselves and about half of the democratic party (if the recorded votes are to be believed, and it’s not actually much higher). She should have won overwhelmingly. She could have. But she’s a divider… not a uniter.

    At the end of the day, she did this to herself.

    She only has herself to blame.

  • tularetom (2311 posts)
    Profile photo of tularetom Donor

    2. Even if he did, why was it close enough for him to swing?

    Hillary Clinton was a shitty candidate!!

    That’s why.

    She offered nothing except the same warmed over crap in an extremely unattractive package, and the Ameircan people tried to warn the Democrat party (by voting for Bernie Sanders in the primaries) not to nominate her because she was a loser.

    I went home with a waitress the way I always do  How was I to know she was with the russians, too?
    • Sadie (3069 posts)
      Profile photo of Sadie Donor

      3. Yes, people knew

      and thus the reason for Bernie’s crowds and appeal.

      The CIA pointed to RT as being the fake news source that failed to receive approval from Team Clinton before printing their articles.

      H A Goodman and I agree on this CIA report~


        Wake up, peeps, their kids go to Harvard and Yale; your kids go to Iraq & Afghanistan.   
  • 99thMonkey (3875 posts)
    Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

    4. The funny (not ha-ha) thing about this paragraph …

    reporting on the Podesta emails was in the public interest, not just about stirring up shit. People had a right to know where Hillary Clinton actually stood on fracking. People had a right to know the contents of Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches. The public had a right to know that the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign against the Sanders campaign in the primary.

    … is that yes indeed the “public had the right to know” the damning info in Clinton’s emails, HOWEVER, the M$M did only scant (if any) actual coverage on most of that damning information .. instead the public got a steady stream of deflections, distractions, etc. (i.e. how “bad” Trump had suddenly become, after months of M$M showering him with favorable 24/7 absolutely free coverage during Primary, “touching” color glossy highly- staged profiles and portrayals of how absolutely wonderful Hillary is, NOT mentioning no one showing up for Her$elf’s “rallies”, etc.).  The public heard about absolutely everything and anything BUT the damning information in DNC & Podesta emails.  i.e. Seth Rich’s mysterious — and as yet unexplained — murder, CNN’s Donna Brazile’s habitual shilling & lying while secretly feeding inside-CNN info to Team Clinton, the DNC/Team Clinton’s nasty and utterly false smear campaigns against Bernie Sanders, etc.

    In order for Russia to have actually exerted any influence on US elections, the public would have had to actually heard about that damning information, which only dribbled out begrudgingly, due mainly to the relentless work of both progressive & RW alt-media sources, NOT because of M$M coverage.

    • FanBoy (7983 posts)
      Profile photo of FanBoy

      6. trump's free coverage is the thing that confirmed me in my belief he was

      no “rebel” but just another tool in the bag of tricks

      just as sanders lack of coverage confirms me that he was the actual rebel

      • 99thMonkey (3875 posts)
        Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

        7. Yep, Trump = bogus Trojan horse rebel. Bernie = the "real deal" rebel.

  • FanBoy (7983 posts)
    Profile photo of FanBoy

    5. yes, people had a right to know. we could equally style it that

    “Putin supported democracy with his (alleged) hacking”

  • Fawke Em (4186 posts)
    Profile photo of Fawke Em Donor

    8. I Tweeted this.

    But I changed the title to “Shit @kdrum says:” :lol:

  • Ash F (137 posts)
    Profile photo of Ash F

    9. It shouldn't have been that close in the first place.