[EL] What could be done

Sun Jan 8 13:14:47 PST 2017

Now we enter into a discussion that would require us to know the
sensitivity of the supporters of the two candidates to changes in
information. If Hillary's supporters were so prone to flee her camp when
additional information was released on something that they already had
plenty of information on, yet Trump's were not in response to a brand new,
highly alarming, issue, one must be very skeptical of the claim that the
additional information from Russia in particular was really what turned the
tide and not the excitement differential, which existed throughout.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tyler Culberson <tylerculberson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would refer Terry to the FoxNews Russian apologist machine that is
> occuring right now to challenge the assertion that Russia's interference in
> the election harmed Trump in anyway - nor seemingly did his association
> with and strong support from neo-nazis and white nationalists.
>
> - sent via mobile device
>
> On Jan 8, 2017 3:41 PM, "Terry Martin" <tjm5da at virginia.edu> wrote:
>
>> This illustrates a good point regarding the cure for speech being more
>> speech. The perception of Trump being helped by Russia, which Obama and the
>> Dems repeatedly hammered on after the emails were released, is reasonable
>> to assume hurt Trump far more than the knowledge that Hillary and the DNC
>> engaged in corrupt behavior, which was already known or at least widely
>> suspected. This is why the cure for speech-related offenses is not an
>> election challenge, as it is for vote counting issues and other issues
>> deriving from the mechanics of the process, which are not relevant here.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>> 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
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> 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
>> 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/ce22400f/attachment-0001.html>