It is time to stop the refrain that Russian interference did not change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. It did. That is not conjecture- it’s math. The Mueller Report is quite explicit that there was a substantial effort by Russian agents to influence the election. Generically they wanted to undermine American confidence in our institutions. As Trump became a viable candidate, increasingly they aided his campaign while injuring that of Hillary Clinton. Through hacking of the DNC emails and targeted advertisements the Russian trolls, certainly at the behest of Vladimir Putin, had direct influence on the election.
How do we know those events changed the outcome? It is in the numbers; and not those of prognosticators and pollsters. It is in the actual count of the votes. Already known is that Clinton won the national popular vote by a substantial margin (2,868,686). Therefore, the critical issue was the Electoral College and three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The difference was decided by a total of less than 80,000 votes spread over those states. Combined, in those states, there were about 19 million registered voters. That means the differential was less than 0.5 percent of possible voters but that action shifted 46 Electoral College votes. We do know voter turnout was low as compared with the election of 2012. Notably, that was true in some areas that typically vote Democratic. It is undeterminable as to how many voters changed their minds based on that either Comey’s announcement or direct Russian meddling but the numbers indicate such change did occur. Most important, even the voters themselves probably do not know they were covertly influenced. When interviewed on camera, I saw some Trump supporters proudly state that, “no Russian agent had been in the voting booth with them.” In reality, they were, just not recognized as such. The issue is the mind, not the hand that casts the ballot.
How did that happen? It is important to note that several of the Russian ads were designed for those people who were perceived to be disenfranchised. Racial divisions were played upon as Russian operatives posed as members of the Black Lives Matter movement. They also employed astute analysis of other divisive issues and tailored ads to exacerbate the most contentious ones. As indicated on page 31 of the Mueller Report, the adroit Russian operatives, posing as American’s, were able to not only communicate directly with people, but cause them to act. The example of Miners for Trump is a classic. Using a dramatic photo of a miner they actually convinced unsuspecting people to attend rallies with no formal organization. We now know the image used was a stock photo and the miner long-dead. According to the man’s family he had been a staunch Democrat. Nonetheless, Russians convinced Americans to hold pro-Trump rallies in Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York. Trump’s own campaign reportedly posted information on some of the rallies on their Facebook page. Note the Mueller Report continues on with a section subtitled, “Targeting and Recruiting of U.S. Persons.”
Some of the techniques employed were created by Cambridge Analytica (defunct in 2018) and AggregateIQ (a Canadian company) for the United Kingdom Brexit campaign. The Brexit model, targeting the disenfranchised, emotional manipulation, and lying, was successful. Exploiting easily available social media profiles, the ads were targeted at known psychological vulnerabilities. The new component from the emerging information technology was that those ads could be tailored for individuals and transmitted in near real-time.
When evaluating the outcome in the previously mentioned three states it is hard not to surmise that Russia did swing the election. Based on turnout, it appears that they were successful in depressing Democratic leaning voters specifically in Wisconsin and Michigan. The numbers of votes cast are available on line. Comparisons between 2012 and 2016 results tell a story of shifts unaccounted for from campaigning. In both Wisconsin and Michigan there was a dramatic decrease in the number of votes cast, 238,163 and 109,651 respectively. But another number to look at is the ballots cast for “other” candidates. The difference between those years in those states is striking, especially in Michigan where 21,792 more votes went to 3rd party candidates than were cast in 2012. That number is even more remarkable in Pennsylvania where 3rd party candidates gained a whopping additional 125,324 votes (196,656 total).
From the Mueller Report we also know that voters in another swing state,Florida, were specifically targeted by the Russians. Florida, which was hard-fought by the candidates, did flip from blue to red which was a surprise to many. With over nine million votes cast in the state, Trump won the 29 Electoral votes by only 112,911 ballots or one percent. Here, both parties saw an increase in support. What was more impressive is the unexplained dramatic increase in votes for 3rd party candidates which collected 271,442 ballots. That was an increase of 216,679 or five times the amount in the 2012 election. While uncertain, it does appear those influence efforts were effective.
Regarding that 2016 election, investigative results have usually stated that while there was foreign intervention (specifically from Russia) there is no proof it changed the outcome. The operative word is “proof.” Following a logic trail, while it cannot be proven, the probability that either of two events changed the outcome is extraordinarily high. Those events were; 1) The 28 October, 2016 announcement by Comey that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton, and 2) The concerted Russian effort to support Trump while denigrating Clinton.
Before her departure former Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen was asked about her knowledge of Russian interference in American elections. She parsed her words carefully, though some in the press missed the exact quote. Neilson noted that she had not seen any evidence that the Russians had successfully invaded the voting infrastructure. The operative words were “infrastructure” and “successfully.” That is a critical differentiation and was done for an audience of one. Trump himself has repeatedly rejected the notion of Russian interference in the election. He openly refuted the notion when on stage with Putin in Helsinki. Despite overwhelming evidence provided by the U.S. Intelligence Community, and as detailed in the Mueller Report, Trump continues to evade the issue. As recently as last Friday (May 3rd) while discussing matters with Vladimir Putin by phone, not only did he not address the 2016 campaign interference, Trump didn’t advise him to halt the current attacks.
Accepted is that there were third party candidates campaigning. What is unlikely is that those campaigns were so much more effective in 2016 than they had been in 2012. Also acknowledge is that other factors were involved, not the least of which was relatively high negative ratings for Hillary Clinton and a general disdain for “politics as usual.” As demonstrated by the outcome, there were a substantial number of voters who were prepared to “burn the house down.” Some of the disgruntled voters actually believed the mantra that Trump would “drain the swamp.” As I indicated in an article in mid-2016, that election cycle featured two candidates each with high negative numbers. Finally, the numbers quoted here similarly could apply to Comey. That, however, does not change the issue of Russian influence.
Given the narrow margin of victory in key “swing states,’’ statistically the probability is overwhelming that Russian operatives did alter the outcome of the American election. What is 100 percent certain is that they achieved their primary objective; that of sowing distrust and discord among the general population. The greatest travesty is that the GOP leadership, especially Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, have chosen to ignore the obvious and claim that submission of the Mueller Report is the end on the controversy. It is not. However, this is how democracies die.