[EL] What could be done

Sun Jan 8 13:59:26 PST 2017

Its the art of Russian statecraft at issue.  

My advice was to release all email quickly-alert parties mentioned or people who were part of communications to blunt the gamesmanship that the Russians would be engaged in later in the election when it suited them.  The replies and actions taken regarding communications that would mute the suggestions of Russian strategically released messages were important.  The Russians were not engaged in good government or whistleblower activity--they engaged in statecraft.

People are still playing their roles even know.  If the positions were reversed and Sanders were their odds on favorite I would hope commonsense on not supporting his candidacy would prevail.  In any case Sanders lost because he could not get a couple of major voting constituencies to support him.  For example losing African American voters by double digits in the primary did not bode well for him.

After around March when he needed 50% or more of the remaining votes to win he should have not been featured as a viable candidate, but that would have lowered ratings for broadcast news programs which live on advertising dollars.  This is a consequence of moving news into the profit sector when networks were acquired in 1970-1980s by new companies.

Defense of Russian aggression against the United States based upon party or affiliation or due to under appreciation for how information presented in a certain way can play on the emotions of players, which includes voters is unfortunate.

There was fake news which no one knew about until after the election which was a factor as well--and likely Russian inspired.  There was a shooting at a local DC pizza restaurant because of a fake news story.

This issue is about politics and its role in providing a vulnerability that could be exploited by the Russians because our culture and society was more attuned to reality TV than the serious matters involved in selecting a President.

The Russian are not our friend and their meddling will likely not end with the recent election.  Putin is highly sensitive to personal slights, prone to revenge, uses violence against enemies.  For example, he went after the Russian press-- now there is no free press, academic freedom does not exist and the wealthy were taught to stay in their place when he put one of them on trial and stripped him of his wealth.

Putin wants us divided and impotent to act as a leader on the wold stage.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2017, at 4:14 PM, Terry Martin <tjm5da at virginia.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170108/4f8c0f01/attachment-0001.html>