Hacker News Reader

My reading of Tanden's tweet is that she's rebutting Trump's first sentence, not the second. Ie, Asserting that Russian hacking (in the form of releasing sensitive emails) was plainly sufficient to flip 70 kVotes (Donald Trumps cumulative margin in the states over the tipping point) and ignoring the question of whether "voting machines [were] touched".

View on HN

Even if they meant Russian hacking influenced people enough to flips 70k votes, that's still unsupported conjecture worded in way that strongly implies actual hacking of votes.

Calling it 70k votes makes it sound small, but its more like 1% of voters. 1% of voters making their mind up based on TRUE stories about inside baseball at the DNC? Unrealistic. I bet 99% of voters couldn't even tell you what the emails were about.

And that's without considering the negative affects of the Democrats attacking Trump for being in bed with Russia, which probably cost him votes too.

Trump's second sentence clarifies and elaborates that the first sentence is referring to voting machines.

So what? I ask this very specifically because you're applying precisely the same rhetorical device that Tanden is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com