Hacker News Reader

> "Trump won, and we didn't foresee it, so it must have been Russia tricking stupid, dumb rednecks into voting for him"

strawman.

Some other theories about why black turnout was low this election:

Voter suppression: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppressio...

Russian-funded fake social media activism specifically targeted at black people: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/20/559113232/russian-operatives-...

https://thinkprogress.org/black-matters-us-site-90625b18f262...

What effect do you think Russian propaganda and voter suppression had on the black turnout for HRC? And what effect did simply not fielding a historical black candidate have on the enthusiasm to vote among the black population?

Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote, despite the media screaming constantly that Trump is racist.

> despite the media screaming constantly that Trump is racist

This stuff is really, really not conducive to good discussion.

> Also, how does black targeted propaganda and state-wide "voter suppression" laws explain that HRC lost big on the black vote relative to 2012, but Republicans came out equal or perhaps even better in the black vote

A few things here:

* Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?

* Since the starting proportions were so skewed, you would expect lower black turnout to disproportionately impact Democrats (due to simple compositional effects).

* The propaganda was specifically anti-Hillary (not anti-voting), so you would expect it to disproportionately impact Democrats.

Despite having an account for almost 8 years here, I can only post about 1 comment per 12 hours, so here is my response:

Do you think it is an unfair statement? Perhaps I should have said "despite the media frequently asserting that Trump is racist".

> * Can you cite a source that says Republicans did better in the black vote relative to 2012?

I compared the 2016 and 2012 CNN exit polls for this: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls and http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

I know exit polls aren't perfect but the samples are large here and I don't see any reason to expect some kind of pro-Trump or anti-Romney bias in these.

What exactly is the Russian propaganda you're talking about? I've only read about them promoting both sides of contentious issues like BLM

I agree with voter suppression possibly being a factor. However, any narrative involving "tricking" gullible voters with fake ads is, again, playing to a very dark place in the minds of too many voters on the left. Instead of Russia tricking dumb rednecks into voting FOR Trump, it's tricking poor, helpless black people into NOT voting for Hillary.

Both narratives are virtually impossible to prove or disprove, which makes them perfect fodder for the wishful thinking of the liberal think tanks.

I find them to be highly insulting to the working class whites and blacks that they pertain to.

It is the height of condescension when comparatively wealthy people ascribe a high level of gullibility to people groups who they likely don't associate with. It's patronizing and dehumanizing, and honestly, smug.

You're the one thats bringing in all this insulting classism. No one said "dumb rednecks" except you. No one called black people "poor and helpless" except you. No one in this thread suggested poor people have high levels of gullibility except you. I implore you to let go of this straw man.

Everyone is susceptible to propaganda and information warfare. Rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural.

Critically examining the way false information is spread via social media is not insulting or classist.

Examining social media spreading disinformation is interesting and should be done.

If you think that the fervor with which this is being done isn't being pursued due to a narrative that it caused Trump to win, you're being very naive.

I also resent the fact that you are insinuating I CALLED black people poor and helpless. I didn't. I simply characterized a belief that I believe many pushing the Russian meddling are running with: That these campaigns were not only run (of course they were) but that they were persuasive enough to have had an effect on the outcome of the election.

You aren't wrong about all classes being susceptible to propaganda. I've been shocked by how many well-off people I work and socialize with (fellow left thinking people) have begun to resemble the right-wing people I witnessed for years jumping to conclusions about the fake-scandal that was Benghazi. Rational people who latch onto rumors as facts.

Steve Bannon = White Supremacist (he's not, just an asshole) Donald Trump being blackmailed by Kremlin with tapes of him with hookers (zero evidence) Russians hacked voting machines in key states (zero evidence) Russian ads on social media influenced voting outcomes (zero evidence)

I want to point out that none of these are things that sway people's existing opinions. They are all just confirming their existing biases.

As someone who also has friends and family in middle America I honestly believe that the best way to ensure that Trump gets re-elected again in 2020 is maintaining the "only redneck bigots voted for Trump" argument.

Roughly half of Americans voted for Trump, to insinuate that they are all bigots is to insult half of the country. Obviously most of the bigots voted for Trump, but they are still a very small minority. To win the next election Democrats need to convince Trump voters to switch sides by demonstrating that they care about middle America, which is 95% of what Trump's campaign was.

Considering that over half the country chose to field these two terrible candidates in the election, I'm perfectly fine with insulting half of the country.

I normally avoid arguments about this, but factually you're incorrect.

There was approximately 61.4% adult voter turnout. Not only that, trump LOST the popular vote with only 46.1% of the ballots.

What this comes out to is that roughly 30% of eligible voting adults supported Trump. This is _nowhere near_ "roughly half of Americans".

(I'd add the additional factor that only ~130[EDIT: 250] million of the ~323 million US population is even eligible to vote. I don't mean this in terms of "Oh secretly all infants liked Hillary" but that it seems disingenuous to portray the numbers as an overwhelming popular mandate in the way you're suggesting. The data is simply not that comprehensive.)

EDIT: As newlyretired correctly pointed out I conflated the total eligible # (250m) with total voted # (130m) That being said, I still stand by the crux of my post.

The actual number of eligible voters was about 250 million in the last presidential election, up from 235 million in the 2012 race.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...

I wasn't trying to suggest that Trump won by popular vote, I meant that of people who voted about half of them voted Trump.

True Trump only had 46%, but Hillary only had 48%. If the entire US population was only 100 people all lined up on opposite sides of one room you'd have a hard time telling them apart by their numbers alone.

My point was more like this: A lot of people voted for Trump. Incumbents typically have an easier time getting re-elected than their challengers. If Democrats want to stop a second Trump term they need to get voters on their side. Pidgeonholing the entire right side of the American political spectrum as redneck bigots is a surefire

> I honestly believe that the best way to ensure that Trump gets re-elected again in 2020

That all depends on how the Mueller investigation will end. Chances are Trump will not be able to get on a ballot by then.

Have you seen the left as of late? They have just as many bigots if not more. They're universally completely intolerant that the person they didn't vote for won the election. They also have rather interesting opinions on white people on the country. If that's not bigotry I don't know what is.

> Trump didn't magically get votes that Romney didn't. Instead, the data shows that Hillary didn't get black voters to turnout in the numbers that Obama did.

It was even worse than that (for HRC and the Dems). Did she even visit Wisconsin during the campaign?

Also there are reports that Trump received a higher fraction of the black vote than Romney got.

Per the Vox article linked in a sibling comment, 95% of black women who voted in 2016 voted for Hillary.

> Instead, the data shows that Hillary didn't get black voters to turnout in the numbers that Obama did.

It also shows voter suppression by Republicans hurt Democratic turnout in critical states (Wisconsin).

Take Wisconsin's 10 EC votes and give them to Clinton and she would still lose. As a side note, I find it interesting how one man's voter suppression laws are another man's voter integrity laws.

“Voter fraud” is just a pretext. It happens at negligible rates whereëver it's been studied, and Republican legislators have actually been caught red-handed conspiring against likely-Democrat demographics, it's not just speculation.

Unbelievably Trump even won overall with white women, he got 53% of that vote.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/20/14061660/w...

> "Trump won, and we didn't foresee it, so it must have been Russia tricking stupid, dumb rednecks into voting for him"

I disagree that is what the narrative is. I agree, though, that it's not likely any significant number of people (if any) switched votes.

To me, the narrative is that Russia was, and is, sowing discord into politics. They are just trying to incite more civil strife and divide us more. And that is what seems to be working.

The recently publicized ads, for example, all just reinforce right and left-leaning stereotypes. They don't try to get anyone sitting on the fence.