Russia, election meddling and cyber influence

[britbox]

Maybe you and I understand "mandate" differently. The electoral college is one thing, but a mandate has to do with how many people back your agenda. Trump lost the popular vote by 48.2% for Hillary v 46.1% for Trump. That is not a mandate in my understanding of it. Sure, the electoral collage is how we determine presidents, but it's not how we define majority opinion. Would you like to redefine mandate for me? And I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I was protesting before he even took office. I hit the streets on 1-21-17. You seem to be taking the US elections rather personally, btw.

The definition is:

the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

I don't need to redefine it - thanks anyway.

 

[Moxie]

Dictionary definition, but not the popularly understood one. A majority of the people here didn't vote for him and don't agree with his policies. He has the House and Senate, but there are people on the streets telling him they don't agree with his agenda. There is a reason that he keeps revisiting the election: he knows he has a weak mandate. If you don't like that term, how about this: he lacks the majority opinion to give authority to his mandates and policy initiatives.

 

[Asmodeus]

I have to say that here in the States, the only people really harping on the Russian connection are the Left. It seems that the Russian connection, just like the 'paid' protests, is the only strategy that Democrats, particularly the far-Left, have at the moment. Eight years of identity politics have the Democrats with essentially no coherent economic policy to speak of. All the Left has is a strategy of attempting to delegitimize Trump.

As far as the Russian threat talk and the idea that they influenced our election is just silly. Outside of insider elite concerns that they may be losing control of their ability to dictate foreign policy (a concern since non-elected officials are so powerful), most honest analysts are not overly concerned with the Russians. Russia is a kleptocracy (did I spell that correctly) who spend most of their time stealing from each other. Is Putin the only 'elected' official ever to obtain office with modest means to become a billionare? Just like other regional authoritarian leaders, he robs the state blind. These political actors never do well on the international stage since they are often reluctant to leave the home for too long. One can leave and find someone else in charge.

 

[Asmodeus]

I should add that Trump is the legitimate president of the U.S. He won a majority of states and Hillary did not. Popular vote totals have absolutely no bearing on these outcomes.

One day when I have some time I'll give you all a lesson on the constitutional virtues of the EC. Till then, get over it.

 

[Moxie]

I have to say that here in the States, the only people really harping on the Russian connection are the Left. It seems that the Russian connection, just like the 'paid' protests, is the only strategy that Democrats, particularly the far-Left, have at the moment. Eight years of identity politics have the Democrats with essentially no coherent economic policy to speak of. All the Left has is a strategy of attempting to delegitimize Trump.

As far as the Russian threat talk and the idea that they influenced our election is just silly. Outside of insider elite concerns that they may be losing control of their ability to dictate foreign policy (a concern since non-elected officials are so powerful), most honest analysts are not overly concerned with the Russians. Russia is a kleptocracy (did I spell that correctly) who spend most of their time stealing from each other. Is Putin the only 'elected' official ever to obtain office with modest means to become a billionare? Just like other regional authoritarian leaders, he robs the state blind. These political actors never do well on the international stage since they are often reluctant to leave the home for too long. One can leave and find someone else in charge.

There are no "paid protests." And you can make Putin out to be a little man in a big suit, if that works in your narrative. Apparently these alternative facts are they kind of "style it your own way" worldview that they're peddling on the right. Good luck with that.

 

[Moxie]

I should add that Trump is the legitimate president of the U.S. He won a majority of states and Hillary did not. Popular vote totals have absolutely no bearing on these outcomes.

One day when I have some time I'll give you all a lesson on the constitutional virtues of the EC. Till then, get over it.

The question was "mandate" not who actually won. He won, but by very little, not the popular vote, and he is not liked and ill-trusted. Grow up.

 

[mrzz]

Excellent post, Mrzz, and I take a lot of your points. Particularly that it is rather laughable and ironic to talk about fiddling elections from the POV of a South American. Believe me, when George W. Bush was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000, we could all see how FL was likely jiggered in a few different ways. In a state where the candidate's brother was the governor, and his father had been the head of the CIA...who better to know how to rig an election? We are not naive to this.

However, if you think if Russia was just using social media to influence the US elections...who's being naive, now? We know it was also selective leaks, and there could have been electronic fixing of the numbers...they were very close in key states. It wouldn't have taken much.

As to freedom of the press v. state-sponsored media, there are differences. There's the BBC in Britain. There's NPR and PBS in the US. But Putin has done a lot of work to dismantle the free press in Russia and go back to the old Pravda days. Maybe you don't believe that and think that they are all filled with journalists with the same esprit de liberté, one as the other. But there is a lot of evidence that the Russian ones are under a lot more scrutiny and strong-arm.

I cited social media as an example. That is the whole point, we don´t know -- and we are very far from knowing - the exact extent of the activities. We already discussed the question of the selective leaks -- is not that simple. About the eletronic fixing, that is a whole different story. This, if proven, or even if credible reasons for suspicious would be found, would be serious. Again, I never criticized the investigation in itself, but rather the public use of it (while nothing of substance has emerged).

It is a different story for two reasons: first, this would be really getting your hands dirty. Second, this is completely unrelated to any internet stuff. You operate it differently, you need people on the ground, the expertise is different... is really another ball game. From here it looks like that people are putting everything electronic on the same bag -- and that is what sounds silly. I saw the data from the election, there were also close calls in favor of the Democrats... those it prove anything? Again, I am not saying that I am positively sure that nothing happened, I am saying that the evidence given so far is poor. By the way, I do not think the Republicans would need, and that neither would want, Russian help to do such a thing... anyway, just a guess.

By the way, I am well aware of the fact that the Russian media is under the scrutiny of the state. As I said, I assume that it is biased. I read too much Soljenítsin to forget this for a second (teddy is cursing me as he read this name...), but, on the same note, I know that is perfectly possible for people to find a way to go against the current from within the system. The Russians has been practicing this for over a century now.. My point is always that you need to reach for both sides in order to get closer to the truth, if there is such a thing as simple as "truth".

 

[Nekro]

https://www.rt.com/usa/372219-larry-king-mcafee-cybersecurity/

 

[mrzz]

Dictionary definition, but not the popularly understood one. A majority of the people here didn't vote for him and don't agree with his policies. He has the House and Senate, but there are people on the streets telling him they don't agree with his agenda. There is a reason that he keeps revisiting the election: he knows he has a weak mandate. If you don't like that term, how about this: he lacks the majority opinion to give authority to his mandates and policy initiatives.

This is a valid point, @Moxie, and it should not be forgotten. Given the American system, majority opinion is mainly symbolic, but symbolic things are pretty important in democracies. It would be even stronger if HC had more than 50% of the votes, but still... I disagree with other points but in this one I fully agree with you, and in fact I believe most here do, even if not willing to concede giving the tone the discussion acquired.

There will (or could) be always people on the street stating their disagreement to a given agenda. The main objective of a developed democracy is to find a compromise between the different sides. One way or the other, situations like this, IMO, show the flaw in presidentialism (or is it presidential system? I don´t know it in English... you need to answer my language questions, dear English speakers). That is, what difference (rather than symbolic) does it make if you have 48% of the voters in one side and 47% on the other? Either way if you simply go forward strictly by your political agenda, all you do is to further enlarge the distension in society. It seems that DT is completely incapable to avoid such a route, but I would add that the former administration, even if it was clearly better at this aspect, also failed to address it properly, and in this regard, looking at the campaign rhetoric, HC would also be a step backwards in this regard.

I suppose the Electoral College is an attempt to deal with such divided situations, and I can glimpse some of the reasons. I am really interested in seeing what @Asmodeus has to say about it. I mean, what is the point in a majority (to give a extreme example), if you have fifty million voters in
side and fifty million plus one in the other? In this case, majority is a completely political meaningless statistical curiosity (and I am a Physicist!).

 

[britbox]

Dictionary definition, but not the popularly understood one. A majority of the people here didn't vote for him and don't agree with his policies. He has the House and Senate, but there are people on the streets telling him they don't agree with his agenda. There is a reason that he keeps revisiting the election: he knows he has a weak mandate. If you don't like that term, how about this: he lacks the majority opinion to give authority to his mandates and policy initiatives.

Disagree. In the UK for instance, the governing party will usually have less than 40% of the votes. Giving the mandate is electing somebody within the given system.

If you change the given system, then don't expect the same results as the whole electioneering process will change and the voting patterns will be altered.

If you were working on first past the post system in the USA on an overall national head count.... then Trump would likely have spent far more time in California and heavily populated Democrat-leaning states and cities. In the framework of the current system, he focused on the swing states... he was smart. I posted a video a while ago by Newt Gingrich on the tactics adopted - it was interesting.... and also explained how Trump won despite facing the majority of the media, large parts of corporate America, the entertainment industry and an election budget dwarfed by the figures spent by HRC.