I’m kind of hoping for a flow of good information for this administration carrying us all the way into midterms, but you can wish in one hand…
The question we are discussing is whether Russia had a preferred candidate in the election. An ad posted after the election is irrelevant to this question.
I agree with you in large part, that once Trump won then they would spend some time attacking him to make him less effective, however this means nothing with regard to narrow question we have been debating.
+99%
That was the odds given to Hillary up to the day of the election. Why would they waste their time with trump adds?
The Russian efforts had been going on well before Election Day, obviously. But to the larger question, why not?
A waste of resources. The presumptive winner was Hillary all along. Discredit her in the eyes of half the voters, and this turmoil will carry on into her presidency. Only, ☭rump was elected and their influence picked up right where they left off. They had the help of the fbi and RNC throwing shade on Hillary. Now they have the help of 17 intelligence communities, the DNC, and a Steele dossier aided by Trump’s “unique characteristics.” I guess you could say the Russians pwned us, and it continues.
Waste of resources? Trump won, didn’t he?
It was a waste of resources to attack him because Hillary was the presumed winner since before the primaries.
Except for, you know, the probability models that showed Trump having a 30% chance of winning the week before the election.
That’s an excellent theory. However, when Trump was the front runner in the Republican primary, they didn’t seem to spend any time attacking him either. They did spend resources attacking many of the other Republican challengers.
I can go all day. And it’s easy, go dig up all the polls that hinted at a Trump victory. I’ll give you 10 for every 1 that says different.
Who said anything about polls hinting at a Trump victory? I referenced the model (and I was off based on your own link, it was 35% chance of a Trump victory) that showed the probability was no where near 99% of Clinton winning. I’d rather take a model based on an aggregate of polls (Nate Silver’s model) rather than a single person or single poll’s results. A 1/3 chance is a lot better than 1/100.
American media had it covered.
And all were still wrong. The point is, Hillary was the presumptive winner.
Good points.
Considering that someone hacked the DNC emails, and the FBI never was allowed to investigate those servers to determine if they were breached, how they were breached, and who may have breached them, it could have been an inside job. Their could have been some Russian spy, informant, mole, or collaborator within either the DNC or the Hilary campaign.
You’d think the FBI would have tried to protect the DNC and the Hilary campaign from this, and sent spies into those places. But apparently the only people agencies run by Brenner and Comey were concerned about protecting, was Trump? That seems at least a little bit fishy, don’t you think?
Sure. The one candidate speaking kindly about Russia was the one they happened not to attack.
That’s kind of a coincidence, don’t you think?
Allocation of resources. It would make little sense to attack him at the time with the media already doing that for them. Plus, you’re leaving out the post election attacks along with the dossier (which was constructed before the election)
We both know the media attacks on Trump were ineffective. In fact, they may have bolstered his appeal to his base. I find this excuse very lacking.
Again, the post-election attacks have no significance in this discussion.
Third, the dossier is not clearly the product of the Russian government. I see no reason to believe it was any strategic design of theirs however Id be happy to look at any evidence to suggest it was. More to the point, the dossier was so ridiculous that they couldn’t even use it against him.
How is a probability wrong? That’s like saying a the 1/6 probability to roll a 3 on a 6-sided dice is wrong if you roll a 1.
Here’s my favorite
That affirms my point.
