Let me put out a theory filled with tinfoil hats, based on what I read on social media (Reddit/HN): (Disclaimer: I am not an American and I do not live in the USA. I have no horse in this rat race)

Amount of Russian Hacking in US Elections is directly proportional to the amount the elections go to the favor of the Republicans/Others.

Democrats won the house, so no Russian meddling happened. Had the republicans somehow managed to win the house, the democrats would have declared war on Russia by now.

It's both funny and sad to see USA behaving like the entire country is on LSD.

politely removes your tinfoil hat. sounds like something straight out of infowars. (Disclaimer: not from the US so also completely unbiased)

The Hound of the Baskervilles has laryngitis?

Precisely.

My tinfoil theory.

They want some one to blame the soon to be failing economy on.

Trump has been taking credit for Obama's economy for the past two years and once Trumps policies start to take effect the economy is going into a recession and they want to blame it on Dems.

so frustrating reading this bs, sad people believe this. you talking about the same obama et all that said all of this was impossible, krugman et all said market would crash then everything shot up election day?

so this is trump taking credit for obama's economy but once it sours, which it will, all of the sudden I bet it will be 100% trumps economy. how convenient

What? Have you looked at any GDP growth or unemployment charts?

A single one?

Does anyone have any real, solid proof that Russian hacking has had significant impact in a US election?

Only Gulliver 2 can be attributed to Russians. It had no impact at all.

The DNC "hack" was an local insider whistle-blower (later killed - unconfirmed), the CIA and NSA info were also from inside whistle blowers. High impact.

The Macron leaks were most likely Russian, unfortunately with zero impact. One should really look what was exposed there. Then it went from there. The Russians really should have used Wikileaks as all others did. Their own attempts were all highly unsuccessful.

Doesn’t anyone remember a trove of John Podesta’s emails being dumped every time some fresh scandal about Trump breaking?

you have this completely backwards, but i dont expect you to understand that

Does a failure to influence the elections make their hacking ok?

Kind of, mostly because I don't trust the media to differentiate between rogue actors doing some port sniffing and targeted state-sponsored hacking.

For example, I'm fairly convinced most fake news is about making a quick buck, not about actually influencing the illection.

There is no doubt inside Russia, that e.g. DNC leak was a state-sponsored campaign, conducted by the guys in the same department that employed the Salisbury's killers (military intelligence). The fake news trolls all work for a private company, owned by a Putin's crony oligarch called Prigozhin, and we are way past adding "allegedly" at this point. Why are they too called "hackers" is a mistery.

How would you go about making a quick buck with fake news? Betting on Trump on the eve of the elections 4 to 1 (iirc) would be more of a gambling addiction than business plan.

> https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/50...

This guy claimed he was making $10-$30k a month. There was another piece I can't find right now about a couple of college kids doing something similar. Fake news is wildly profitable.

How about giving credit to tech companies, maybe they fixed whatever was broken the last time and reduced the amount of misinformation and propaganda that was being spread? I recall seeing something like Twitter banning 20k accounts that were discouraging people from voting.

So... HN's consensus is that The Media Lies and there was no Russian hacking of the election last time?

Am I reading that right?

I mean, it's not an indefensible position. But it seems weird that we default to this. There's an awful lot of smoke to just assume there's no fire.

> HN's consensus is [...]

> Am I reading that right?

No, you aren't reading anything right if you think there is an HN consensus on this topic.

Because the whole point of the 2016 operation (which involved support for lots of different, often diametrically opposed, positions and candidates) was to set up a situation where the US was even more politically divided against itself, weakened and ineffectual in foreign affairs, and set on a course to continue inflicting self-harm, and it obviously succeeded beyond Putin's wildest dreams, and there was no apparent need to interfere to change course evident in the run-up to the midterm. Plus, everyone was looking for it's so better to keep powder dry this cycle and leave 2016 seen as either a one time thing (or even, for the truly gullible, a thing that didn't happen) so next time there is a need, there isn't as much guard.

My tinfoil theory is that they actually succeed. By letting the democrats win the house the division is going to be even deeper, but them losing the senate put the whole country in a spiral of division. Putting a log on the fire sort of speak.

There was nothing to be gained, this time.

Interference would only reinforce and strengthen Trump's critics and doubt about Trump. (And by naming "Trump", I include all in that camp, that is promulgating policies/initiatives favorable to Russia -- in outcome, when not in stated goal.)

As it is, Trump has been saying "no collusion", "no effect on the outcome", etc. And now in his rhetoric he can point to the 2018 elections and say, "See!"

I mean, this one isn't exactly rocket science, as they say.

Here are a couple of hypotheses -

1) Russian hackers, as an influencing factor in US elections, never existed; 2) Russian hackers grew disillusioned with Trump when he failed to go full Quisling and surrender the USA to Putin.

1) How do you explain the 12 Russian operatives from Mueller's indictment?

justification for a bs investigation

>as an influencing factor in US elections

Allow me to add "significantly" as a modifier to "influencing factor".

In 2016 we were primed to look for signs of Russian interference once Hillary accused Trump of collusion.

In 2018 we were warned of non-specific Russian (and Chinese) threats, but had no direction on where to look, so we didn't see much of anything.

The contrast was enough to make us believe the Russians were a no-show.