I’m among those who have been thinking, very little. That is, that Russian activities are well down the list of the factors that put Trump in the White House. (If you ask me, the #1 factor is that the overall socio-political intelligence in this country is still considerably less than many of us fondly chose to believe. #2 was the atrocious, despicable behavior of corporate media, including pretty much across the board here in Minnesota.) I still think that, more or less, but I found this article intriguing and worthwhile.
It’s a fairly straightforward question. But more than a year later, we are no closer to a definitive answer on the actual impact of Russian intelligence hacking efforts as well as their active measures through RT, Sputnik News, and thousands of Facebook and Twitter ads, bots, and trolls on the 2016 election.
It’s not really a question of whether they made a difference: it’s a question of how big or small that difference ultimately was.
This unknown impact would be added to the appeals made by either candidate, the specific states they visited, and how they managed to resonate with the general populace in the wake of the news cycle. And of course there was also the last-minute release of the Comey letter, which FiveThirtyEight states may have dropped Clinton’s numbers by between 3 to 5 percent. Is it possible that she had already been severely hampered by the endless reams of bad news about internal DNC emails, and then John Podesta? What difference did it actually make?