WebsterMark wrote on 07/23/18 at 08:45:39:

The question is; does anyone believe Russian involvement, which as far as I've heard was only Facebook and some TV ads, convinced enough people in those five states to switch their votes?

yes or no.

Absolutely yes. Because it wasn't the ads or the commercials (never heard of either before) but the deliberate fake news as well as targeted news/topics based upon people's opinions. So they could either outrage people or excite them. It wasn't just the Russians; Trump had an office doing the same thing, using Facebook as a means to target individuals specifically. I am convinced this made the difference.

That said, Obama was the first to use Facebook as a low cost, but effective channel to reach voters. He may have used similar tactics to Trump had they been available then, who knows.

But if we disregard the election for a moment, for us mere mortals this phenomena is devastating because not only will fake news escalate in general; fake news will also become more effective because "they" will hand us fake news that we want to hear/believe, and hence the effect will become massively more effective.

WebsterMark wrote on 07/23/18 at 07:52:38:



really???

cause I saw ALL of those things....  

except replace "Resist" with NObama signs,  and I don't think Obama had "Yes We Can" caps.... maybe he did, and maybe his followers just aren't the cap wearing kind...  But there was violence at some, (not most) Tea Party rallies, and conservative republicans MOST DEFINITELY ran on Impeaching Obama

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/23/18 at 08:23:51:



no, but I head about them vandalizing Obama's family monument, which was to Michelle Obama...    

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-family-monument-vandalized-092553

or Vandalizing a car with a Pro Obama bumper sticker :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/25/barack-obama...

and while we're at it,

"1. Fired 22 employees

In Las Vegas, a small business owner fired 22 of his 114 employees because Obama was elected and "elections have consequences." The owner told a local radio station he needed to build up a "nest egg" because of "taxes and regulations" Obama would instate. (CBS Local)

[READ: Bloomberg to Ration Gas in New York]

2. Asked the Queen of England to "take us back"

An open letter on the conservative Free Republic apologizes to the Queen of England for "that little misunderstanding we had 236 years ago," and asks the United Kingdom to please "forgive us and take us back." (Free Republic, Gawker)

3. Initiated a boycott against Democratic neighbors

Former Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero, who blogs at LibertarianRepublican.net, says his response to Obama's reelection is a "personal boycott" against Democrats, be they friend, foe or neighbor. In a Q & A with New York Magazine's Daily Intel, Dondero said the boycott means he just might ignore a drowning Democratic neighbor. (Daily Intel)"



https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/08/10-dramatic-...

so, we can go tit for tat all day long if you want...

LostArtist wrote on 07/23/18 at 13:46:16:


I ain’t perfect  

LostArtist wrote on 07/24/18 at 12:54:08:


So, does that mean, you are really a, ‘closet’, Ultra-Liberal, when you say you are Not ?  

 Why does it matter?
 
 Specifically why is there a supposed measure of which President has more negative publicity?  How could this even be assessed accurately since there are so many variables, including how each President has interacted with the media.

 Things change.  You could always get off the couch, or even donate to media outlets that support and publish your views.  You could even avoid the "Stern Effect" and stop viewing the media that you disagree with, get in the information and opinion vacuum and maybe be happy with what you see.

 Or maybe we could not care which President has it worse, that's my choice.