[EL] What could be done

[Larry Levine]

I don’t think it’s a question of “embarrassing details regarding emails” so much as a reinforcement of the negative imaging of Clinton that was the central thrust of the Trump campaign. 

Larry

 

From: John Shockley [mailto:shockley1894 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Terry Martin <tjm5da at virginia.edu>
Cc: larrylevine at earthlink.net; law-election at uci.edu; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] What could be done

 

Dear All:

I think it is reasonable to assume that the Russian hacking changed the results because the election was extremely close, and Donald Trump used the emails often in his attacks on Hillary Clinton during the campaign.  He would have ignored the emails had he not found them helpful!  Instead, day after day as they dribbled out, he used them as more examples of "crooked Hillary."  Given how extremely close the election was, any of a number of things plausibly made the difference, including of course the Comey actions.  When you realize that Hillary lost Michigan by just over 10,000 votes out of 4.8 million votes cast, and that a change of only 5,000+ votes would have given her Michigan, it is quite plausible.  The same with Wisconsin--a change of hardly 11,000 votes (she lost the state by less than 23,000) out of nearly 3 million votes cast, and Pennsylvania (a change of 23,000 votes out of over 6 million cast).  Again, your best proof is Donald Trump's actions and the extremely narrow margin by which he won those three states (and Florida).

He was very, very lucky, and of course he is grateful to Putin for the help.

Yours,

John Shockley, Ph.D.

Department of Political Science, retired

Augsburg College

 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Terry Martin <tjm5da at virginia.edu <mailto:tjm5da at virginia.edu> > wrote:

I must wonder why "it is reasonable to believe [Russian hacking] changed the results of the election." Is there data to support this or is it mere speculation? I suppose if one were to believe that there were enough voters in those swing states for whom embarrassing details regarding emails made the difference that would make sense, which would be necessary to reach this conclusion given that the report concludes that there was no evidence of tampering with the vote tally. However, with such vast differences in policy and public perceptions of the candidates (recall that Hillary was widely viewed as corrupt and untrustworthy even absent the emails), I am hesitant to believe that details released in emails would cause enough voters to free the Clinton camp for Trump's, to vote for Johnson/Stein, or simply stay home in a way that would change the outcome in states totaling 38 electoral votes (would need a combination of the following: Michigan - 16, Pennsylvania - 20, Wisconsin - 10, Florida - 29, meaning either FL+MI/WI/PA or PA+MI+WI). 

 

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> > wrote:

In an election as close as this one was in several key states, I think it can be concluded that the actions of the Russian government influenced public opinion in the U.S. to a degree that it is reasonable to believe it changed the result of the election. But under our system, even if it were proved, what could be done.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-11-most-important-lines-from-the-new-intelligence-report-on-russia%e2%80%99s-hacking/ar-BBxYXGw?li=BBnb7Kz

Larry

 

 

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

 


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170108/3958f836/attachment.html>