Yougov: Half of Hillary voters think that Russia hacked the election
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:04:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Yougov: Half of Hillary voters think that Russia hacked the election
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Yougov: Half of Hillary voters think that Russia hacked the election  (Read 2831 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 09, 2017, 03:58:49 AM »

It seems the lesson Hillary supporters learned from the election are that they need to be more crazy conspiracy theorists.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2017, 10:04:23 AM »

You were citing people who believe Hillary stole California in the primary.
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2017, 10:22:44 AM »

You were citing people who believe Hillary stole California in the primary.

Brilliant rebuttal!
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2017, 10:35:00 AM »

Hillary voters will say anything that is spit out about the emails because many believe their candidate lost in a rigged election that was never rigged.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2017, 10:51:49 AM »

You were citing people who believe Hillary stole California in the primary.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2017, 11:53:03 AM »

People are entitled to their opinions obviously. I don't think Russia was WikiLeaks' source, but I am an Assange fan (as well as of Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, Kim Dot Com, etc.), and have been going back to when he first started up shop, and his word/record matters a good deal to me. The reports have also been bereft of details. Some of it can be claimed as an issue because the information is 'classified', but it does feed a great deal of skepticism. Regardless, I don't hold it against anyone if they accept the report and believe Russia had some role in the election (in general, China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea are probably infiltrating our systems constantly, and vice versa).

It's still pretty early post-election though. The Dems were caught off-guard, and they're trying to take stock of their positions, and figure out how to rebuild/rebrand. After the 2012 election, it actually took some time for the republicans conducted their famous autopsy. I believe they finally got around to it in March. I have a feeling that in a couple months, the Dems will most likely be focused on the 2018 midterms. The Senate map is rough for them, but there are possibilities for pickups, both in terms of House districts that have become vulnerable, and in terms of governorships. Might not be a wave election like 2006, but if they focus, they could find some wins.

I am an Assange fan too, but IIRC he didn't actually say Russia wasn't his source. He technically said a 'state actor' wasn't his source. I believe the main theory is that Russia paid some non state actors to pass the information off.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2017, 12:21:21 PM »

I am an Assange fan too, but IIRC he didn't actually say Russia wasn't his source. He technically said a 'state actor' wasn't his source. I believe the main theory is that Russia paid some non state actors to pass the information off.
He has been hesitant to reveal his sources (in general, they tend to give zero clues), but I'm pretty sure he's noted that not only was a state actor or state-sponsored actor not his source, but that the leaks did not originate from the hacks that Crowdstrike identified.

Do you have a source for this? That would mean that either there is a still-yet undetected hack of Podesta's inbox and the inboxes of the staffers' whose emails were leaked, or that someone with authorized access to Podesta's inbox leaked the contents. While the hacks that CrowdStrike identified, the hackers apparently did nothing with it? I find that less plausible. It's like you coming home with your furniture stolen and a broken door lock. But the detective says that the person who broke the door lock did not take anything, and someone else did?

Also, now that I read more about this, Assange seems to have made some questionable statements. For example, he denied that the hacks were meant to help Trump (link), noting that when the hacks were actually done, Trump was not yet considered a serious contender for the presidency. If he is referring to the Podesta phishing e-mails, those were in March 2016, when the nominees were already most likely Trump and Clinton.

Also, he says he had no preference for who won the election. If that was the case, why did Wikileaks release the e-mails in daily batches, and stop releasing them after election day? Releasing them all at once would have served the needs of transparency.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2017, 12:56:33 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2017, 12:58:10 PM by Beet »


I believe it was stated in one of his recent interviews (might've been an audio interview, or might've been the video interview with Hannity). It stood out that he noted there might have been a separate hack. If I find it I'll link it. Here are some relevant tweets from WL Twitter accounts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. It seems his position before was skepticism that a hack occurred at all, so maybe I misheard, and he is maintaining the same stance.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
In part, they were released as they were for maximum exposure (they used what they deemed a "stochastic terminator algorithm"). During the WikiLeaks 10 year anniversary event, he noted his goal was to release all relevant materials for the election, prior to Election Day. The mainstream media coverage of the actual contents was unfortunately minimal for the content of the leaks as they were released (the most devastating content, the Wall Street transcripts and the list of excerpts, were among the first batches, and obviously the first one came out an hour before the Billy Bush tape, which dominated news cycles for a week.
[/quote]

But doesn't admitting that they were released for "maximum exposure" with a goal of getting them all out before Election Day amount to admitting that they were released to influence the election? Transparency and exposure are not the same thing. It's one thing to believe that the public has a right to know certain information, it's another to make a judgement about how much "exposure", or attention, certain information deserves. That is a subjective judgement that should be up to the public. Further, by withholding information, they made it more difficult for the public to get all of the information in a timely manner. For example, we were unable to judge the context of Clinton's answers during the debates, with information that according to Wikileaks, we had the right to know. What percentage of other Wikileaks releases were released on a daily basis in over 60 batches?

As far as the timing of the first release, I've read that it was rushed out after the Billy Bush tape to neutralize it, and according to at least one comment I've read since the election, this is what cancelled its impact.

Edit: Re, the tweets you linked to, they only reaffirm the statement that their source is not a state.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2017, 01:09:10 PM »

There's a lot of dumb and/or misinformed people in both parties. A lot of this misinformation comes from the media. None of this changes the fact that we were attacked by Russia.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2017, 01:48:34 PM »

They were intended to provide voters with the information, to have at their disposal before casting their votes. In order to get coverage, the "stochastic terminator algorithm" was deemed necessary.

Except many voters cast their votes throughout October, in fact early voting opened up in late September. Further, the information in the leaks was pertinent to the debates, particularly the town hall (October 9) where ordinary voters had the chance to submit questions. If the aim was to provide the public with maximum information, releasing all in one batch would have served that purpose better. If the goal was to maximally damage the Clinton campaign, releasing in daily batches to keep Wikileaks in the news would have been better.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except the link you provided wasn't an announce of the Clinton e-mail release. All it says is "regarding upcoming publications" and speaks of a 10 week window (which would have taken it past the elections). At their 10 year anniversary they didn't announce a specific schedule either.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of this.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2017, 02:00:25 PM »

It's been pretty well established by social science that when you make a poll asking about whether some position is valid or not, that you will easily get 20 to 25 percent of the public to agree that it is, regardless of how outlandish/asinine it is factually.

The fact that the question is even being asked at all gives it validity/credibility in the eyes of many.

That is the big problem with the attitude prevalent in so much of the media about "fair and balanced" coverage that places a higher priority on giving both sides of an argument "equal time" as opposed to sorting through what is true and what is false.

Now regarding "hacking", well it depends on how you define the word "hack".

More people really did vote for Trump than Clinton in states necessary for him to win the electoral college. Voting results weren't directly manipulated/altered. For some, anything less than that may not be considered hacking.

I would argue however that what was done, that is a deliberate, systematic, sustained, state sponsored effort to mislead the American people about the candidates with the specific intent of electing one over the other, constitutes the election being hacked.

It is essentially Watergate all over again, except done by the Russians rather than by the Nixon administration, and done through the internet as opposed to a physical break in.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2017, 04:20:47 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Releasing Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts, evidence of the DNC's collaboration with the HRC campaign, evidence of Donna Brazile's leaking of debate questions to HRC, and the Bill Clinton, Inc memo is not an effort to mislead the American people. It is an effort to inform them. If that information indicated HRC's sterling competence and incorruptibility, as some people inferred from the documents, so be it. If that information indicated to others the opposite conclusion, so be it.

I think any stories of "Russian election hacking" to spook HRC supporters are raw silliness and are indicative of great failure on the part of the press to not mislead the public.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2017, 09:08:49 PM »

Why hasn't the possibility of an internal leak been more explored?
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2017, 09:13:32 PM »

russia did in fact try to "hack the election" on a partial level.
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2017, 09:15:38 PM »

You were citing people who believe Hillary stole California in the primary.
those uncounted ballots, though. heavily understaffed and clear shenanigans afoot concerning registration statuses of people more likely to have supported bernie
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,369


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2017, 11:10:00 PM »

Why hasn't the possibility of an internal leak been more explored?

Because the investigation last summer found GRU and FSB footprints all over the DNC server.

And because the primary proponent of the "internal leak" scenario gets less credible by the day. Julian Assange has now been reduced to little more than a pro-Trump sockpuppet. I'm surprised that Wikileaks hasn't complained about Meryl Streep and advertised Trump-branded products yet.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2017, 11:21:39 PM »

Why hasn't the possibility of an internal leak been more explored?
This UK ambassador claims he was involved with an internal leak.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

russia did in fact try to "hack the election" on a partial level.

By allegedly being involved with the release of e-mails that detailed how the DNC rigged the primaries? LOL, the irony.

Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2017, 01:00:23 AM »

Why hasn't the possibility of an internal leak been more explored?
This UK ambassador claims he was involved with an internal leak.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

russia did in fact try to "hack the election" on a partial level.

By allegedly being involved with the release of e-mails that detailed how the DNC rigged the primaries? LOL, the irony.



Someone who actually believes the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries is yelling at people for conspiracy theories. "It's only a conspiracy theory if it says good things about someone you don't like #feelthebern)
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2017, 01:01:03 AM »

Russia didn't hack the election they just hacked the voters.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2017, 08:05:47 AM »

By allegedly being involved with the release of e-mails that detailed how the DNC rigged the primaries? LOL, the irony.

nay?


http://abcnews.go.com/US/russian-hackers-targeted-half-states-voter-registration-systems/story?id=42435822
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/12/how_russia_hacked_american_voters.html
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2017, 08:39:09 AM »

A reminder that jfern believes Ohio was stolen in 2004.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2017, 05:54:18 PM »

Bernie F[INKS]ING OWNS jfern's ass again: https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/818640484776165376

GO BERNIE! DESTROY THE REGRESSIVE PUTIN LOVING LEFT! MY KING IS ALIVE!
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2017, 06:21:34 PM »

Direct correlation between how distressed voters are and what they'll get on board with.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2017, 08:31:37 PM »

Well Russia did "hack the election" if you mean that they used hacks to undermine faith in the election. The phrasing of the question in the poll asks whether Russia tampered with vote tallies, which they did not.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2017, 08:36:57 PM »
« Edited: January 10, 2017, 08:38:35 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Bernie F[INKS]ING OWNS jfern's ass again: https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/818640484776165376

GO BERNIE! DESTROY THE REGRESSIVE PUTIN LOVING LEFT! MY KING IS ALIVE!

First of all, you are an annoying little sh**t. I don't even like Putin.
Second of all, that was a mistake of Bernie to say that.
Thirdly, even if the Russians were involved, the heck does releasing information on how terrible the DNC was remotely compare to what Nixon definitely did in 1968 with sabotaging the peace talks or Reagan may have done in 1980 with delaying the Iranian hostages being released?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.