Trump outrage of the day

[Travis]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

And a big part of that conservative misinformation machine has been conflating "interference" and "changing votes" in order to confuse the issue and make the Democrat's concerns over the recount lawsuits seem like hypocritical sour grapes.

[Tyler durden]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

[JLee]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

And a big part of that conservative misinformation machine has been conflating "interference" and "changing votes" in order to confuse the issue and make the Democrat's concerns over the recount lawsuits seem like hypocritical sour grapes.

I really wish everyone in politics would agree that the 2020 election was legit so we could just move on.  Democracy is being eroded as we continue to entertain the idea that the election was somehow compromised.  Whatever happened in 2016, at least that election itself was never brought in to question.

[JLee]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

And a big part of that conservative misinformation machine has been conflating "interference" and "changing votes" in order to confuse the issue and make the Democrat's concerns over the recount lawsuits seem like hypocritical sour grapes.

I really wish everyone in politics would agree that the 2020 election was legit so we could just move on.  Democracy is being eroded as we continue to entertain the idea that the election was somehow compromised.  Whatever happened in 2016, at least that election itself was never brought in to question.

It sort of was, by the same people - remember this? They won so they didn't have to dispute the actual results, but they were still claiming fraud and they should've won bigger.

[GuitarStv]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Yeah.

Tyler, I'm looking at the article from before the election and the other article about a 'dubious claim' being made and am still having trouble understanding exactly what misinformation you're seeing that is leading Democratic voters awry.

[Tyler durden]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

And a big part of that conservative misinformation machine has been conflating "interference" and "changing votes" in order to confuse the issue and make the Democrat's concerns over the recount lawsuits seem like hypocritical sour grapes.

I really wish everyone in politics would agree that the 2020 election was legit so we could just move on.  Democracy is being eroded as we continue to entertain the idea that the election was somehow compromised.  Whatever happened in 2016, at least that election itself was never brought in to question.

I get that we all have bad memories. Saying no one questions the 2016 election is not true. If you half agree with it or its your side I get how easy it is to gloss over it or not care. its more fun to punch on "the other team"

but the first women president who will never be still thinks the election was not on the level

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAqAOWSZMU4X6BG_U4xS2XIedFURcXLhe7kFwgNAjqqgVOSSmp1ZSm1vveHslk30mHBAcLLO1zrdxLmmI5Veh5yijaSWJLlh9ihpwoz75HWvhrByzDUkl8Q516ELB6IfCEO2mLLKd6YJNwLr9PBrQXepRKZO9H-Z8a4UOMt1s_-D

[Glenstache]

Or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election

Which aligns with:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts

Russia used the same tactics that they have used in many other countries: systematic disinformation. Trump, even if he was in collusion or conspiracy, clearly saw the benefit to those methods and adopted them himself. If you flood the information space with chaff, then the truth has a hard time getting a foothold. Alternative facts are useful, just not for informing people.

[GuitarStv]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

I'm confused by this comment.

The 66% of democrats surveyed in that poll are obviously misguided.  There's no evidence that Russia changed ballots . . . but you seem to be implying that they have been mislead by "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes".  Can you provide the articles that you're referring to which told people that Russia changed ballots?

As far as Russian interference, there's no hoax going on at all.  The Mueller report concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".  It should still seem like Russian disinformation played a role in Trump's election because that's what the evidence says happened.  You can certainly argue your view about how important this "sweeping and systematic" election interference was . . . but it's simply denying reality to argue it didn't happen.

And a big part of that conservative misinformation machine has been conflating "interference" and "changing votes" in order to confuse the issue and make the Democrat's concerns over the recount lawsuits seem like hypocritical sour grapes.

I really wish everyone in politics would agree that the 2020 election was legit so we could just move on.  Democracy is being eroded as we continue to entertain the idea that the election was somehow compromised.  Whatever happened in 2016, at least that election itself was never brought in to question.

I get that we all have bad memories. Saying no one questions the 2016 election is not true. If you half agree with it or its your side I get how easy it is to gloss over it or not care. its more fun to punch on "the other team"

but the first women president who will never be still thinks the election was not on the level

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAqAOWSZMU4X6BG_U4xS2XIedFURcXLhe7kFwgNAjqqgVOSSmp1ZSm1vveHslk30mHBAcLLO1zrdxLmmI5Veh5yijaSWJLlh9ihpwoz75HWvhrByzDUkl8Q516ELB6IfCEO2mLLKd6YJNwLr9PBrQXepRKZO9H-Z8a4UOMt1s_-D

Hang on.  These are moving goalposts here.  You previously said "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were misleading people into believing that Russians had tampered with ballots.  You still haven't found any evidence to support that claim.

Now you're posting an article from Yahoo news article where Hilary Clinton is quoted as saying:

There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level

We still don’t know what really happened.

Which of the above statements are you concerned might be causing Democrats to believe Russians tampered with ballots?

[talltexan]

Oh, how I'd enjoyed having several days in a row when this thread was not appearing on top of my "unread replies" screen in the MMM forum.

[frugalnacho]

I'm confused.  Is Tyler durden claiming there was no interference from Russia in the 2016 election?  Or what exactly is he claiming?

As someone that follows a low information diet and despises politics, I thought the facts were that Russia interfered with the election by hacking into voter registration systems and spreading propaganda.  I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that believes Russia actually tampered with the votes though. 

[Glenstache]

The first rule of project mayhem is you do not ask questions.

[nereo]

I'm confused.  Is Tyler durden claiming there was no interference from Russia in the 2016 election?  Or what exactly is he claiming?

I think a good deal of the confusion lies (quite intentionally) in what constitutes "changing votes".

As discussed, it's established fact that Russia ran a pervasive disinformation campaign in 2016 with the goal of supporting DJT and undermining HRC (see Mueller report, congressional testimony from numerous US intelligence agencies, etc). 

One could say that Russia's interference was designed to change votes (which seems to be what many Dems are arguing), which is very different from saying that Russia physically altered the ballots that people cast.

[Kris]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

Really?  I don't remember seeing anything from the main stream media in 2016/17 about changing vote tallies, it was all about adverts for Trump on Facebook paid for in Russian roubles, Trump campaign people having meetings with Russians, and so on.  Which I understand is fact not misinformation.

Yeah, I don't remember seeing anything about Russia changing vote tallies in mainstream media, either.

[Davnasty]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

Durden's argument that mainstream media supported the notion of direct vote tampering is laughable, but I do find this poll very odd and surprising.

Was there really a widespread belief among Democrats (and 18% of Republicans) that votes were directly tampered with or is it possible that pollees were confused by the wording of this question? Are there any other polls which support a similar 66% of Democrats believe this?

[GuitarStv]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

Durden's argument that mainstream media supported the notion of direct vote tampering is laughable, but I do find this poll very odd and surprising.

Was there really a widespread belief among Democrats (and 18% of Republicans) that votes were directly tampered with or is it possible that pollees were confused by the wording of this question? Are there any other polls which support a similar 66% of Democrats believe this?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

This gallup poll from the day after the election indicates that 76% of Clinton voters accept Trump as legitimate.

[bacchi]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

Durden's argument that mainstream media supported the notion of direct vote tampering is laughable, but I do find this poll very odd and surprising.

Was there really a widespread belief among Democrats (and 18% of Republicans) that votes were directly tampered with or is it possible that pollees were confused by the wording of this question? Are there any other polls which support a similar 66% of Democrats believe this?

The polling questions and results are linked at the bottom of the yougov page.

What isn't shown in the summary is interesting.

------- author=https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf
Table 42b: Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
Millions of illegal votes were cast in the election? (definitely and probably true)

Republicans: 63%
Democrats: 39%
-------

More Republicans thought there were illegal votes in the 2016 election than Democrats.


No Democrats accused Dominion of vote switching. No Democrats accused Putin of flying in fake ballots. No Democrats did a sad and comical "recount" to look for secret watermarks and bamboo fibers (hahaha). No Democrats promised the evidence would be there "in two weeks" and had 70+ lawsuits dropped or dismissed because they were BS.

Oh, yeah, no Democrats stormed the capitol during the electoral vote count and threatened to hang VP Biden because he didn't change the result to their liking.

[Kris]

I really wrestle with myself about these election conspiracy theories, because I remember what it was like in early 2017, still befuddled that Donald Trump really had won. The Russian disinformation thing seemed like it could have made a difference. I'm trying to understand why the believers of this "Big Lie" are intellectually different from where I was four years ago, especially with the anniversary of the Comey firing over the weekend, followed immediately by that meeting with Kislyiak (washington post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html ).

Dont feel to bad, you had a lot of company. 66% of democrats believed Russia changed vote tallies.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes

The "liberal" misinformation machine is effectively doing its job. The MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes of the world spend days feeding people misinformation that they need to keep the russian collusion/dossier hoax going. People often believe what they want to.

Durden's argument that mainstream media supported the notion of direct vote tampering is laughable, but I do find this poll very odd and surprising.

Was there really a widespread belief among Democrats (and 18% of Republicans) that votes were directly tampered with or is it possible that pollees were confused by the wording of this question? Are there any other polls which support a similar 66% of Democrats believe this?

I strongly suspect that this is an issue of the wording of the question.

[Tyler durden]

I'm confused.  Is Tyler durden claiming there was no interference from Russia in the 2016 election?  Or what exactly is he claiming?

As someone that follows a low information diet and despises politics, I thought the facts were that Russia interfered with the election by hacking into voter registration systems and spreading propaganda.  I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that believes Russia actually tampered with the votes though.

Definitely not saying Russians didn't interfere. I think that is beyond dispute. I was quoting an article showing 66% of democrats believed Russian hackers changed vote totals. Someone up thread was wondering how it could be republicans believe in the "big lie". I was pointing out people can believe in all sorts of crazy things.

Here is an article from NYmagazine - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked."

These stories were out there.

I dont know how to explain why 66% of democrats think the vote was changed. I suppose the answer could be the same as why so many republicans think the "big lie" is true.

[JLee]

I'm confused.  Is Tyler durden claiming there was no interference from Russia in the 2016 election?  Or what exactly is he claiming?

As someone that follows a low information diet and despises politics, I thought the facts were that Russia interfered with the election by hacking into voter registration systems and spreading propaganda.  I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that believes Russia actually tampered with the votes though.

Definitely not saying Russians didn't interfere. I think that is beyond dispute. I was quoting an article showing 66% of democrats believed Russian hackers changed vote totals. Someone up thread was wondering how it could be republicans believe in the "big lie". I was pointing out people can believe in all sorts of crazy things.

Here is an article from NYmagazine - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked."

These stories were out there.

I dont know how to explain why 66% of democrats think the vote was changed. I suppose the answer could be the same as why so many republicans think the "big lie" is true.

From your referenced article:

While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review

From the link in your referenced article:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

[GuitarStv]

I still haven't seen any evidence at all that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were misleading people regarding the outcome of the election.

[Tyler durden]

I'm confused.  Is Tyler durden claiming there was no interference from Russia in the 2016 election?  Or what exactly is he claiming?

As someone that follows a low information diet and despises politics, I thought the facts were that Russia interfered with the election by hacking into voter registration systems and spreading propaganda.  I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that believes Russia actually tampered with the votes though.

Definitely not saying Russians didn't interfere. I think that is beyond dispute. I was quoting an article showing 66% of democrats believed Russian hackers changed vote totals. Someone up thread was wondering how it could be republicans believe in the "big lie". I was pointing out people can believe in all sorts of crazy things.

Here is an article from NYmagazine - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked."

These stories were out there.

I dont know how to explain why 66% of democrats think the vote was changed. I suppose the answer could be the same as why so many republicans think the "big lie" is true.

From your referenced article:

While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review

From the link in your referenced article:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

yes, they found no proof, obviously. Hard to find proof of something that never happened.

But this is how it works right. Get the juicy article out there. Get pundits of tv chattering about what if and all the possibilities. But no one of course is claiming proof, just daily non stop insinuation. It has the desired effect.

It is still happening. A nice anti trump/republican article comes out, gets talked about endlessly on TV for days. marinates in the mind of 10's of millions of Americans. and then a week or two later, the retraction, which no one reads, and certainly no one sees on tv.

New York (CNN Business)The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC News on Saturday issued significant corrections, retracting earlier reporting that said Rudy Giuliani had been directly warned by the FBI that he was the target of a Russian disinformation campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/01/media/washington-post-new-york-times-retraction-giuliani/index.html

[JLee]

I still haven't seen any evidence at all that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were misleading people regarding the outcome of the election.

Lots of goalpost moving, though.

[Tyler durden]

I still haven't seen any evidence at all that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were misleading people regarding the outcome of the election.

sorry, i cant get behind the paywalls of post/times. and msnbc and cnn well, i either saw it live or didnt.

stories like this were all over the place at the time. This one from as late as 2019

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/26/did-russia-really-hack-2016-election-088171

"But significant questions remain about what happened in Durham and just how close the Russians actually came to hacking the 2016 election."

= 66%

[ncornilsen]

I KNOW I saw articles and heard talking heads say Russia messed with vote counts. As Tyler has pointed out, you get this headline:


Reuters: "U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictments/u-s-accuses-russian-spies-of-2016-election-hacking-as-summit-looms-idUSKBN1K32DJ

Or
NY Times: "Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

where the title CLEARLY insinuates that Russians hacked the election, where the nuance and "it was only the DNC" stuff is buried (you know nobody reads these things.) Facebook twits share and reshare, talking heads speculate and go to illogical extremes; a narrative is built, and Portland, among other cities, gets looted and set on fire.

[GuitarStv]

I KNOW I saw articles and heard talking heads say Russia messed with vote counts. As Tyler has pointed out, you get this headline:


Reuters: "U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictments/u-s-accuses-russian-spies-of-2016-election-hacking-as-summit-looms-idUSKBN1K32DJ

Or
NY Times: "Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

where the title CLEARLY insinuates that Russians hacked the election, where the nuance and "it was only the DNC" stuff is buried (you know nobody reads these things.) Facebook twits share and reshare, talking heads speculate and go to illogical extremes; a narrative is built, and Portland, among other cities, gets looted and set on fire.

The first article describes in detail information about Russians hacking and releasing information to harm the Clinton campaign.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  The second article describes how Russia was involved in hacking for the purpose of voter misinformation to try to prevent people who supported Democratic candidates from getting to the right place to vote.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  Seems like good journalism - clearly explaining news that happened.

Is your concern that you believe people are too stupid to read further than a headline to clearly explained information in the article?

[Tyler durden]

I KNOW I saw articles and heard talking heads say Russia messed with vote counts. As Tyler has pointed out, you get this headline:


Reuters: "U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictments/u-s-accuses-russian-spies-of-2016-election-hacking-as-summit-looms-idUSKBN1K32DJ

Or
NY Times: "Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

where the title CLEARLY insinuates that Russians hacked the election, where the nuance and "it was only the DNC" stuff is buried (you know nobody reads these things.) Facebook twits share and reshare, talking heads speculate and go to illogical extremes; a narrative is built, and Portland, among other cities, gets looted and set on fire.

The first article describes in detail information about Russians hacking and releasing information to harm the Clinton campaign.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  The second article describes how Russia was involved in hacking for the purpose of voter misinformation to try to prevent people who supported Democratic candidates from getting to the right place to vote.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  Seems like good journalism - clearly explaining news that happened.

Is your concern that you believe people are too stupid to read further than a headline to clearly explained information in the article?

Stupid ? That might be too strong

I would say it’s a valid argument as to why 66% of democrats believe Russians changed vote totals. The only other explanation I heard above was phraseology. Which invalidates most surveys. Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

[bacchi]

Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

It's because believing in an evil cabal of Satan worshipping pedophiles gives them an easy enemy similar to an FPS. It gives the cultists meaning in their lives.

They're called the "GQP" in some circles now as they turn on their leaders that are grounded in reality.

[GuitarStv]

I KNOW I saw articles and heard talking heads say Russia messed with vote counts. As Tyler has pointed out, you get this headline:


Reuters: "U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictments/u-s-accuses-russian-spies-of-2016-election-hacking-as-summit-looms-idUSKBN1K32DJ

Or
NY Times: "Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

where the title CLEARLY insinuates that Russians hacked the election, where the nuance and "it was only the DNC" stuff is buried (you know nobody reads these things.) Facebook twits share and reshare, talking heads speculate and go to illogical extremes; a narrative is built, and Portland, among other cities, gets looted and set on fire.

The first article describes in detail information about Russians hacking and releasing information to harm the Clinton campaign.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  The second article describes how Russia was involved in hacking for the purpose of voter misinformation to try to prevent people who supported Democratic candidates from getting to the right place to vote.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  Seems like good journalism - clearly explaining news that happened.

Is your concern that you believe people are too stupid to read further than a headline to clearly explained information in the article?

Stupid ? That might be too strong

I would say it’s a valid argument as to why 66% of democrats believe Russians changed vote totals. The only other explanation I heard above was phraseology. Which invalidates most surveys. Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

So just to be clear then . . . we're saying that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" - none of them have really mislead anyone?  Because now we've thrown that out the window we seem to be instead discussing why people are too stupid to read for themselves.  Which is OK.  We can go in that direction.  But I want you to acknowledge that there is little real evidence that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were pushing a false conspiracy theory as was originally insinuated.  They are valid and legitimate news sources.  If we can agree to that, then moving right along . . .

I suspect that confusion about the survey wording may have played a part in the results, or possibly there was a problem with the way the polling was done.  It's strange that 76% of Clinton voters would accept Trump as legitimate (https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles) if 66% of them thought that he was elected by Russia.

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

[frugalnacho]

Who the fuck are these 66% of democrats that think russia changed the votes in the 2016 election?  I see the poll you posted, but I've literally never heard a single person ever make that claim. Trump is the only person I remember saying there was outright fraud in the 2016 election, but that was blamed on illegal immigrants and not russia tampering with ballots.  I think we are all incredulous about the accuracy of the poll because it's completely incongruent with the reality we experienced. 

[bacchi]

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

Look one row up, using "Party ID," and combine the "definitely" and "probably."

[JLee]

Who the fuck are these 66% of democrats that think russia changed the votes in the 2016 election?  I see the poll you posted, but I've literally never heard a single person ever make that claim. Trump is the only person I remember saying there was outright fraud in the 2016 election, but that was blamed on illegal immigrants and not russia tampering with ballots.  I think we are all incredulous about the accuracy of the poll because it's completely incongruent with the reality we experienced.

I agree...I've seen precisely zero people in my social circle expressing beliefs that Russia tampered with vote counts.

[bacchi]

Who the fuck are these 66% of democrats that think russia changed the votes in the 2016 election?  I see the poll you posted, but I've literally never heard a single person ever make that claim. Trump is the only person I remember saying there was outright fraud in the 2016 election, but that was blamed on illegal immigrants and not russia tampering with ballots.  I think we are all incredulous about the accuracy of the poll because it's completely incongruent with the reality we experienced.

I agree...I've seen precisely zero people in my social circle expressing beliefs that Russia tampered with vote counts.

Party ID is by self identification in the poll, which might be the problem. Or we'll all living in bubbles of liberal sanity and reality.

[GuitarStv]

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

Look one row up, using "Party ID," and combine the "definitely" and "probably."

Thank you!  That still doesn't give 66% though.  We get 83% doing that:


                       D   I   R 
Definitely true       50% 19% 4%
Probably true         33% 32% 22%
Probably not true    11% 31% 38%
Definitely not true   7% 18% 35%


As mentioned, I don't think combining the 'definitely' and 'probably' makes any kind of sense if we're talking about partisanship.  Independents and Republicans both reported similar percentages for 'probably true' for the same question.


But there's something else.

There are far more Democrats in the US than Republicans.  If 83% of them thought that Trump was an illegitimate president put there by Russia it doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be an uprising against the government because of this false belief.  Just like we saw with masses of deluded Republicans in their violent attempt at insurrection a few months back.  The fact that there appear to be no real actions taken by Democrats who believed their election was stolen makes me think that the poll is likely wrong - and there weren't that many people who believed that their election was stolen.

[frugalnacho]

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

Look one row up, using "Party ID," and combine the "definitely" and "probably."

Thank you!  That still doesn't give 66% though.  We get 83% doing that:


                       D   I   R 
Definitely true       50% 19% 4%
Probably true         33% 32% 22%
Probably not true    11% 31% 38%
Definitely not true   7% 18% 35%


As mentioned, I don't think combining the 'definitely' and 'probably' makes any kind of sense if we're talking about partisanship.  Independents and Republicans both reported similar percentages for 'probably true' for the same question.


But there's something else.

There are far more Democrats in the US than Republicans.  If 83% of them thought that Trump was an illegitimate president put there by Russia it doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be an uprising against the government because of this false belief.  Just like we saw with masses of deluded Republicans in their violent attempt at insurrection a few months back.  The fact that there appear to be no real actions taken by Democrats who believed their election was stolen makes me think that the poll is likely wrong - and there weren't that many people who believed that their election was stolen.

It looks like you are using the results of Q42A on p94 which is about russia hacking emails.  Q42C on p96 gives the 30+36 = 66%. 

[GuitarStv]

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

Look one row up, using "Party ID," and combine the "definitely" and "probably."

Thank you!  That still doesn't give 66% though.  We get 83% doing that:


                       D   I   R 
Definitely true       50% 19% 4%
Probably true         33% 32% 22%
Probably not true    11% 31% 38%
Definitely not true   7% 18% 35%


As mentioned, I don't think combining the 'definitely' and 'probably' makes any kind of sense if we're talking about partisanship.  Independents and Republicans both reported similar percentages for 'probably true' for the same question.


But there's something else.

There are far more Democrats in the US than Republicans.  If 83% of them thought that Trump was an illegitimate president put there by Russia it doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be an uprising against the government because of this false belief.  Just like we saw with masses of deluded Republicans in their violent attempt at insurrection a few months back.  The fact that there appear to be no real actions taken by Democrats who believed their election was stolen makes me think that the poll is likely wrong - and there weren't that many people who believed that their election was stolen.

It looks like you are using the results of Q42A on p94 which is about russia hacking emails.  Q42C on p96 gives the 30+36 = 66%.

Yep, I was looking at the wrong page.  Thanks for correcting me!  Correct numbers:

                           D     I     R 
Definitely true       30% 10% 7%
Probably true         36% 28% 11%
Probably not true    24% 35% 38%
Definitely not true    9% 26% 45%

[Tyler durden]

I KNOW I saw articles and heard talking heads say Russia messed with vote counts. As Tyler has pointed out, you get this headline:


Reuters: "U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictments/u-s-accuses-russian-spies-of-2016-election-hacking-as-summit-looms-idUSKBN1K32DJ

Or
NY Times: "Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

where the title CLEARLY insinuates that Russians hacked the election, where the nuance and "it was only the DNC" stuff is buried (you know nobody reads these things.) Facebook twits share and reshare, talking heads speculate and go to illogical extremes; a narrative is built, and Portland, among other cities, gets looted and set on fire.

The first article describes in detail information about Russians hacking and releasing information to harm the Clinton campaign.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  The second article describes how Russia was involved in hacking for the purpose of voter misinformation to try to prevent people who supported Democratic candidates from getting to the right place to vote.  No mention of hacking vote ballots or changing counts was made in it.  Seems like good journalism - clearly explaining news that happened.

Is your concern that you believe people are too stupid to read further than a headline to clearly explained information in the article?

Stupid ? That might be too strong

I would say it’s a valid argument as to why 66% of democrats believe Russians changed vote totals. The only other explanation I heard above was phraseology. Which invalidates most surveys. Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

So just to be clear then . . . we're saying that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" - none of them have really mislead anyone?  Because now we've thrown that out the window we seem to be instead discussing why people are too stupid to read for themselves.  Which is OK.  We can go in that direction.  But I want you to acknowledge that there is little real evidence that "MSNBC, CNN, Wahsington Post, NPR, NYtimes" were pushing a false conspiracy theory as was originally insinuated.  They are valid and legitimate news sources.  If we can agree to that, then moving right along . . .

I suspect that confusion about the survey wording may have played a part in the results, or possibly there was a problem with the way the polling was done.  It's strange that 76% of Clinton voters would accept Trump as legitimate (https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles) if 66% of them thought that he was elected by Russia.

So I looked into the YouGov data tallies.  It doesn't show 66%: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zq33h2ipcl/econTabReport.pdf

Page 96:

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
- Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.

Clinton Supporters:
Definitely true 31%
Probably true 32%
Probably not true 29%
Definitely not true 8%

If you combine 'probably' with 'definitely' you're close to 60% . . . but I'm not sure it's fair to do so as they mean quite different things.  Where exactly is your 66% number coming from Tyler?

Now, 31% of people who voted for Hilary thinking that Russia definitely tampered with voter tallies is still bullshit and a cause for concern.  That is an indication of belief in fiction and very bad.  But it's quite different from the 66% number that you've been quoting.

I looked at the tallies. I see it showing party ID Dem 30% definitely true and 36% probably true. I summed them up and went with the 66% but if i missed something and its 63%, i can go with that.

For the MSNBC/ CNN / WAPO etc - sure they are valid news organizations. But ones that are quite partisan. I can't get past paywalls from articles 5 years ago but have give you a couple examples from other publications. Politico and Nymag, both mainstream normal news outlets. I dont have videos from the cable news either.

I will not ask you to take it as fact on my memory. That isn't fair at all.

[GuitarStv]

For the MSNBC/ CNN / WAPO etc - sure they are valid news organizations. But ones that are quite partisan.

I don't understand.

A news organization that is so partisan it interferes with the news reported is no longer valid.  Which are you arguing?

[Tyler durden]

For the MSNBC/ CNN / WAPO etc - sure they are valid news organizations. But ones that are quite partisan.

I don't understand.

A news organization that is so partisan it interferes with the news reported is no longer valid.  Which are you arguing?

I'm not saying a news organization being partisan makes it invalid. The WSJ is fantastic on the news, but if you read nothing but the opinion pages your lost in the fever swamps of mostly one sided coverage. So I suppose it depends which outlet and which segment.

The WAPO/ NYTimes and NBC just had to run a major retraction on a story that circulated all over the news for days and days. This happens not infrequently. And to some, not surprisingly the error always cuts the same way. The story comes out painting some republican in a bad light, then the retraction comes much later and much much quieter.

You think thats a coincidence it happens that way?

That is partisan. But doesn't necessarily invalidate everything else the do/report.

[Davnasty]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

[nereo]

so:  WSJ good, WaPo/NYT/NBC bad?

[Tyler durden]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.”

[Tyler durden]

so:  WSJ good, WaPo/NYT/NBC bad?

The opinion pages of the WSJ lean right. Wapo NYT NBC lean left. That is closer to what I am trying to say.

Edit to say im not getting into a conversation about media bias. I dont think ill be changing any hearts and minds on that one. I only offered some articles showing why maybe 66% of democrats believe in a fantasy.

[Sandi_k]

I would say it’s a valid argument as to why 66% of democrats believe Russians changed vote totals. The only other explanation I heard above was phraseology. Which invalidates most surveys. Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

You are conflating "66% of Dems believe Russia manipulated the election" with "66% of Dems believed that VOTES were changed."

They did manipulate the election, through social media and other avenues. There is nothing to say that 66% of Dems believed that votes in the 2016 election were changed by Russia.

Two different things.

[JLee]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."

Hold up.

Reread what you just posted, and pay attention to all of the words.

[Tyler durden]

I would say it’s a valid argument as to why 66% of democrats believe Russians changed vote totals. The only other explanation I heard above was phraseology. Which invalidates most surveys. Any other thoughts on why such a large part of one party believes in fiction ?

You are conflating "66% of Dems believe Russia manipulated the election" with "66% of Dems believed that VOTES were changed."

They did manipulate the election, through social media and other avenues. There is nothing to say that 66% of Dems believed that votes in the 2016 election were changed by Russia.

Two different things.

No, I am not.

A poll taken is saying 66% of Dems believe vote totals were changed. That is independently different that other active measures Russia took.

[Tyler durden]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."

Hold up.

Reread what you just posted, and pay attention to all of the words.

Yes. I think articles like these are perhaps the reason the average democrat voter believes in a fantasy. I don't yet and have not yet been offered a better rationale.

[Davnasty]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.”

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information. Reporting (accurately) that a politician asked the FBI to look at something more closely is not misinformation.

If we assume Reid's request was made without evidence, then perhaps he's guilty of manipulating the media, but CBS is just reporting what happened. Maybe you could even argue that CBS is trying to mislead by discussing the issue at all, but to call it misinformation is incorrect.

[GuitarStv]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."

Hold up.

Reread what you just posted, and pay attention to all of the words.

Yes. I think articles like these are perhaps the reason the average democrat voter believes in a fantasy. I don't yet and have not yet been offered a better rationale.

Don't misinterpret data to draw erroneous conclusions.  I just posted the data you're using for your claims.

The average democratic party voter doesn't believe in a fantasy.  According to the poll you were using, 30% do.  An additional 36% thought that it was likely, but weren't sure.

[JLee]

...snip

Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."

Hold up.

Reread what you just posted, and pay attention to all of the words.

Yes. I think articles like these are perhaps the reason the average democrat voter believes in a fantasy. I don't yet and have not yet been offered a better rationale.

Don't misinterpret data to draw erroneous conclusions.  I just posted the data you're using for your claims.

The average democratic party voter doesn't believe in a fantasy.  According to the poll you were using, 30% do.  An additional 36% thought that it was likely, but weren't sure.

This also assumes that the poll questions were worded in a neutral manner - given the stark difference between poll results and my own life experience, I am skeptical.