So How, Exactly, Do We Think THe Russians Are Interfering In The Dem Primary?

[Me.]

as per the breakibng news that they are copying the 2016 playbook

[kimbutgar]

1. So they can get the weakest candidate in which would be easier for MF45 to beat

That said they are hoping for Bernie as Kurt Eichenwald said they have plenty of oppo research on him.

[Me.]

4. Good Point About K. Eichenwald

[nobuddy]

24. It worked in 2016

[kimbutgar]

31. Yep Russia did so much disinformation they wrecked a good person who would have been

A great president. But the Repukeshad been tearing her down since Bill was in the White House.

I sometimes wish that Hillary won in 2008 and made President Obama her VP and then he would be our President now as he would have demolished MF45.

[UniteFightBack]

35. I've always thought that...Hillary in 2018 we would of had Obama in 2016. I've always

voted for Hillary!!!

[Malmsy]

51. I agree.

[TDale313]

2. Social Media Propaganda, $$$, hacking where possible

And everything possible to create chaos on the Dem side

[DanieRains]

3. They Have Agents / Operatives Pretending To Be Supporters Trashing Other Supporters

Causing chaos.

Just like last time.

Trump is of course playing along, and not protecting our elections in the slightest.

[Voltaire2]

47. Yup. Mostly here though it is by unwitting proxy.

[floppyboo]

53. Is that what they call 'useful idiots'? (btw - love that show on Rolling Stone youtube channel)

Be afraid. be very afraid! Et voila - a divided party and Trump has a much bigger chance - UNLESS you get on board with the candidate generating the most enthusiasm and bringing the largest number of new voters to the Democratic Party's ideals - the ideals that are bi-partisan/universal/compassionate

[onecaliberal]

59. This!

[apcalc]

5. Seriously? You don't think they are on this site multiple times daily

Stirring up trouble?

This site is THICK with them.

[emmaverybo]

7. +++++++

[Blue_true]

32. I don't think this site has any.

There are people here who have long held viewpoints. There is a very distinct anti-rich vibe from many posters here. The Russians have no hand in that, though they will work to exploit the lack of perspective and create chaos for us in the General.

[Voltaire2]

46. Why bother?

There are much bigger fish.

And besides, the work done on Facebook and Twitter to get us to hate each other just drips down to here all in its own.

[Mike Nelson]

6. It's not difficult to figure out...

... chaos, Bernie. Stuff promoting Trump. What they and Trump want... it's obvious, isn't it?

[apcalc]

8. I ask that you would note what the "troublesome" posts relate to,

Any specific topic? Any specific candidate?
Facebook is still loaded with BS also, and Zuckerberg is doing little if anything to police his site, imo.

[Me.]

10. We Don't Know Yet

and won't until more info is reported/leaks out. The only clue is that it's a replay pf 2016. Are they deliberately targeting Joe, aiding Bernie? I can't believe they are after Bloomberg but as I said, more info is needed.

[apcalc]

12. You don't know? I believe I do.

[Me.]

14. Then Say What You Think

[apcalc]

15. Not a chAnce

[defacto7]

9. Not to have Russian on DU. They not around to mess here with loyal democracy.

[apcalc]

13. What?

[MoonlitKnight]

40. OMG

He’s one of them!

[sarisataka]

11. Нет никакого вмешательства

Это ваше воображение товарищ

[apcalc]

16. Excellent response , comrade

[Me.]

18. I Always Wonder About Some People's Sense Of Humor

when it comes to such serious matters.

[defacto7]

22. Stress relief.

We all have our ways of keeping the peace.

[Me.]

25. Ah

[totodeinhere]

17. I don't think anyone is surprised at this news.

I think I would be more surprised if they weren't doing it.

[defacto7]

20. Nope, not surprised at all.

This is a gold mine for creating needless dissent. The admins do a fine job of fighting the intruders. What they're up against is tough especially now.

[stonecutter357]

19. ебать Путин !

[Dagstead Bumwood]

21. и лошадь, на которой он ехал!

[nocoincidences]

23. Пу́тін -- хуйло́!

[Hoyt]

26. Wonder which candidates are benefiting?

[Me.]

27. Which Candidate?

[Hoyt]

28. I think there are 2, but one has shot up in polls recently.

[2naSalit]

55. +1

[MoonlitKnight]

41. Chaos

They want to sew confusion and doubt. So they don’t necessarily need to support one candidate. Heck, the voters are doing a good enough job by bouncing from one candidate to the other every week.

[Hoyt]

42. Saw that last night.

[Voltaire2]

45. The goal is to get people thinking like this.

[apcalc]

34. I believe it

[CalFione]

33. disinformation campaigns about certain candidates to pump up other candidates

The Mueller Report said that Russia worked hard to help Bernie in the 2016 primaries and then Trump in the general election.


I would guess their M.O. is pretty similar this time. They want Trump reelected and they perceive Bernie to be the easiest one for Trump to beat.

[H2O Man]

36. Recommended.

That's an interesting and important topic for conversation. Thank you for bringing it up here, as it is something that we should all keep in mind during both the primary season and as we enter the general election campaign. It's something I touched upon in an earlier post today, and I hope that you don't mind if I expand upon that here.

The first thing that is essential to understand is that, as long as the Democratic Party is united, any one of the current primary candidates will defeat him. The presidential election is, of course, fifty state elections that combine to determine the outcome. We can crush Trump, and regain a number of Senate seats, if we are united in purpose.

The only thing that can allow for another Trump “victory” is if party members are divided by hostilities. It is that simple. Knowing that, we can easily identify the manner in which Russian intelligence is taking to disrupt the election. It's not a mystery.

Before examining these closer, it is important to recognize that Russian intelligence does not have to do as much in specific areas, as they did in 2016. They don't need to meet with Junior at Trump Towers. For they have organized ignorant Americans at the grass roots level to do the eavy lifting.

This week, for example, a person I know posted a meme on FB claiming Speaker Pelosi stole $3 billion from Social Security to fund the impeachment. A number of his beast fiends were outraged. I said that while I believe stupid people have the right to vote, I was convinced that no person that ignorant of how government works should be allowed to graduate from high school. Still, I am confident that people this ignorant will continue to parrot any lie they encounter on the internet.

Thus, we see that the first goal is to identify the biases, prejudices, fears, and hatreds of a group …..or, in this case, two groups, as they will seek to inject infiltrators inside both Democratic and republican circles. After evaluating each group, related but separate goals are identified for the infiltrators of each group. With the Democrats, the goal is to divide them by applying subtle to not-so-subtle pressure on those four fault lines; with republicans, it is to create the unity of herd mentality.

There needs to be no overt planning between Russian intelligence, the Trump campaign, the republicans in Congress, and the grass roots in 2020. They already know the deal, like any other rat in a maze they have previously completed.

Speaking of rats …..people might want to re-read pages 247 to 316 of the book, “The Senate Watergate Report.” It details the tactics and crimes that Nixon's CREEPs participated in, to divide the people that made up the various Democratic candidates' campaigns. Much of it, as you know, was to kneecap Senator Muskie, and there was an attempt – especially by Patrick Buchanan – to have McGovern become the nominee.

It is essential to recognize that this was due to polling in 1972. Despite some attempts to identify the Muskie-McGovern dynamics as similar to today's, we see that our current candidates all do well against Trump in the polling. Yet the goal of dividing by “rat-fucking,” as the Nixonites called it in '72. And we see how they plan to accomplish that.

The Russians will attempt to infiltrate the servers of Democratic groups, and likely to try to change voter registration in specific districts in certain states. That's a given. But we can still crush Trump et al, if we are united in November. Crush them, I say!

The republicans do not need Russians to identify where they can apply pressure to try to fracture that unity. It all comes down to the synergy of ignorance, emotions, and foolish speculation. Does one group of Democrats have a bias against a specific candidate and his/her followers? Make any claim against them that appeals to their biases, prejudices, fears, and hatreds. Pretend that Trump “really” wants to run against any candidate, despite what the polls show, and a portion of the audience will not only believe it, but will spread the word, and it will feed the beast.

One might also read the book”Malcolm X: The FBI Files,” or watch the new Netflicks series on who killed Malcolm. Or study the infiltration and disruption of the Black Panthers or the American Indian Movement. Or watch Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 9/11” again, paying particular attention to the infiltration of the cookies 7 milk anti-war group. It's a simple pattern. Rudy G's friends among the nest of right-wing retired FBI members know this. It's so simply, they do not need a Russian playbook. In fact, Russia borrowed our's.

[PETRUS]

38. I hope people are reading this.

All of it is valuable, but I want to stress one particular bit. You write: "Does one group of Democrats have a bias against a specific candidate and his/her followers? Make any claim against them that appeals to their biases, prejudices, fears, and hatreds." There's more than one vulnerable (so to speak) faction , so we all need to be level headed.

By the way, I hadn't articulated it yet, but I've had similar thoughts about '72 comparisons.

[H2O Man]

49. Thank you!

I'm thinking of using the general topic for an OP.

The '72 campaign & election was important, and we should all learn from it. My impression is that those who didn't live through it are probably sadly aware of the actual dynamics. Most of what is said about it today is rooted in emotional response, not a rational examination. Even people I consider intelligent have frequently forgotten the role that CREEP played, and remember "Watergate" as one mere break-in, rather than a long, on-going series of closely related crimes. And that's a shame.

However, if they want to remember '72 in shorthand, the fact is that a heck of a lot of moderate-to-conservative Democrats voted for Richard Nixon, rather than our party's nominee.

[PETRUS]

61. I think it would be helpful if you do.

Write an OP about this, that is.

Some of my own relatives defected in 1972 - i.e. usually reliable Democratic voters who pulled the lever for Nixon.

There are always lessons from the past, but interpreting things correctly takes care, and predicting the future inevitably involves some guesswork. One thing that strikes me as a significant difference between 1972 and now is that the New Deal consensus was still more or less in place back then. Wage growth had not yet started to fall behind productivity growth. I'm not suggesting this leads automatically to one conclusion or another, just that it's something to think about (and I haven't noticed anyone here on DU commenting on it).

[JudyM]

63. Adding the link to your OP here, well worth a read!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287559915

[H2O Man]

64. Thanks JudyM !

[Me.]

39. So Glad You Have Written This, So Informative

it's such a good background and I have several questions that appeared in my mind as the evening progressed.

The first thing... I have begun to wonder if we can trust the polls. Polls have the position of being able to thrust someone to the forefront with such a big % that so far, after two contests, haven't been supported by votes. Not trying to indict but I don't see the numbers, as there wasn't the type of increase you might expect..

Why is it, still, that the media remains so naive/blind. I saw an interview with Amy Sorkin of the NYer (?) and she was talking about how Sen. W. lost something of herself last night at the debate.

Nunes...can you believe he ran to the WH to tell them that the DEms were (rightfully) informed of the Intelligence Report and that Schiff was part of that group, which is why Maguire was fired? His henchman is now situated in the office of the DNI. How do we/will we be able to clean house and get rid of the vermin or they now embedded in gov. for whatever admins to come?

[H2O Man]

48. Thanks!

Per polls: they are, at very best, a snapshot of the views of a sample of people. They are "accurate" in that brief moment, for that relatively small sample of people. Thus, they can be a useful measure if interpreted correctly, and that must always include recognizing that public opinion is usually fluid. More, the benefit of the poll is connected directly to its audience -- in presidential elections, national polls suggest who will likely win the popular vote, while state polls are a better measure for who is likely to win the actual election. And just to make it even more interesting, the dynamics can change in the last 72 hours before an election, in a way that cannot be measured until after the election results are in. The best example of that might be 1968, when HHH closed the gap with Nixon and making it far closer than the polls had suggested. Indeed, with 24 more hours, Humphrey would almost certainly have beat Nixon, and our nation's history would have been far, far different.

Likewise, the media has to be viewed in context. It's no longer like having Uncle Walter report the facts. It was rare indeed for him to ever come close to adding his opinion. (Funny, that again brings us back to 1968, when he gave his opinion on the situation in Vietnam. LBJ told people he had "lost America" the night that happened.) Today, for good or for bad, almost 100% of those on television insert their interpretation of events while reporting -- and those interpretations are, and can only be, at least partially subjective, as it must include at least a hint of their opinion. There seems to be a bit less of that in newspapers, though they, too, are never pristine in their objectivity.

What we are witnessing with Nunes and Trump and their ilk is terrible.It is damaging to the nation and world. The only potential bright spot is that they are in such a hurry to destroy our institutions that they do not practice any self-discipline.That will eventually catch up to them.

[Me.]

50. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[dalton99a]

37. Kick

[Gothmog]

43. Russia is trying to re-elect trump

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Voltaire2]

44. They obviously drugged Bloomberg before the debate.

[floppyboo]

54. LOL!

[democratisphere]

52. The Russians are doing it with the full knowledge and support

of drumpf the dictator.

[Me.]

57. Yep

[doc03]

56. Their best bet to help Trump would be

supporting Bernie.

[Me.]

58. And Yes

[elleng]

60. Trump's Latest Intelligence Meltdown Isn't About the Facts. It's About the Truth.

"Among the tools Russian hackers working for the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, are deploying are bots, Twitter posts, and websites that purport to be American but are spreading false allegations about Democratic, candidates, the intelligence and oversight officials say."


https://time.com/5788479/trump-fires-maguire/?

[Me.]

62. I'm Confused

Don't facts & truth line up?