Re: What difference did Russia allegedly make?
The fact Hillary was the ultimate insider, ran a poor campaign, made tactical mistakes etc. etc. doesn't mean that Russian interference didn't help - or provide just enough push for her to lose. She lost three states by a combined 100K or 150K votes or so - Michigan by barely 10K, that had she won would have made her president. One can claim she "deserved to lose" but one could easily make the same claim about Trump. Unfortunately one of them had to win, had there been a viable third alternative it would have been an easy choice for many people over these two deeply flawed and not particularly likeable candidates.
The Russian hacking and drip drip drip release of her emails - timed (whether in collusion with Trump officials or by their own plans) exactly to take the focus off Trump controversies like the pussy grabbing tape, or (hoped for) positive publicity like the convention, wouldn't have to keep that many would be Clinton voters deciding to stay home to have made a difference. Obviously we'll never know, but to claim it is impossible that Russia's interference didn't provide that boost Trump needed to win is as ridiculous as to claim that it was definitely responsible. We can't know, but it didn't need to swing that many votes to change the outcome.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
