and you are very wrong. Republican White votes by election 1988 - 60% 1992 - 40% 1996 - 46% 2000 - 55% 2004 - 58% 2008 - 55% 2012 - 59% 2016 - 58% Now go back to your pre-school class
Here is a study that looked into the impact of "fake news" stories on the 2016 election: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4429952-Fake-News-May-Have-Contributed-to-Trump-s-2016.html From the conclusion: We must reiterate that, given the inability to determine temporal order in a single-wave cross-sectional survey, we cannot prove that belief in fake news “caused” these former Obama voters to defect from the Democratic candidate in 2016. These data strongly suggest, however, that exposure to fake news did have a significant impact on voting decisions. What is not clear is if this influence was sufficient to have determined the outcome of this election. That determination would require a much larger survey sample (enabling us to undertake a state-bystate analysis) and an analytical scope that would have included its impact on the behavior of independents and new voters. But since Clinton lost the Presidency by 77,744 votes cast in the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—just 0.6 percent of the votes cast in those states—even a modest impact of fake news might have been decisive. What effect Russia specifically had, I don't know. That's hard to measure. I would not assume their efforts had no effect, as you seem to be arguing. The 2016 election was very close in critical swing states, so a multitude of different factors could have turned the result.
Thanks for the numbers i have to check my sources. @Major and @durvasa Sorry that 54% was wrong, something about validated voters, don't know what that means
Exactly even this source says may" have had an impact. I used to be up in arms about our intelligence agencies saying Russia influenced the election but they never make that claim
You should learn to look for objective and/or cross validate any source that may have bias or push an agenda
I don't think Trump wins in 2016 without the help of fake news on social media, and I don't think his 2020 campaign is as close as it was without it. His rise within the Republican ranks was also fueled by misinformation. What role Russia played in all of that is difficult to say. Russian officials claim those involved in disseminating the fake news are just random trolls, but that's not what our intelligence indicates. So, if it is in fact state-directed, clearly they were attempting to influence our electoral process somehow. That's enough reason to take it very seriously.
Trump trounced the Republican field in 2016. It was ripe for a populist. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Rubio dont need any help to be beaten on the national stage where personality counts Secondly, Americans know how to decipher information on the interwebs. Russia isn't the only bad actor in terms of disinformation
So him getting more votes this is also proof? Is your response serious? Most people vote the same every election
Haha no. But you haven't shown why disinformation isn't relevant. The Russians essentially paid for political ads on social media..... Is social media politically effective?
Sure, I'm aware of all that, I'm looking at this from Russia's perspective - the country, not the regime - what did they actually win? You can't eat pwns, memes and schaudenfreude.
It has no effect on elections. Americans aren't stupid. Just like Hilary's emails, the only people who read them weren't voting for her anyway. If someone is cruising sites with this disinfo they were voting for Trump anyway
