The problem is that there is no way that you can spool back everything in the campaign that had anything to do with the Russian actions and determine the result in the Presidential race and the Congressional races. There are too many factors that could have determined who voted and who they voted for.
Assuming that the interference changed the result gives Russia a victory that is likely not deserved. Here is a try at listing the possible things that might have impacted the race.
- The DNC hack story might have made the difference between HRC getting some portion of the voters who typically did not vote but were brought out by Bernie. Bernie and many of his supporters did try to reach these people. It is certainly possible that there was at least a small group of people for whom these leaks made that impossible.
- The Podesta emails - I read the wikileaks every day fearing for what would be there -- and other than seeing the same ordinary organizational stuff - including some 'in family" criticism of HRC, there was almost nothing. The one thing that was a problem was a copy of a Goldman Sacks speech or draft, where in 2014 she was more positive on TPP. This matched her public position at that time, but it did bring up that she had changed her position. (Not a crime and prudent if facts change)
From this, I would have said that this did very little, but I heard Obama's comment that you can't know how the drip of these stories changed the last important weeks of the campaign. It meant that she, not Trump, was the one spoken.
- On the other side, I would have guessed (before the election) that the exposure of ties of multiple Trump aides to Russia and Obama administration statement that it was Russia which was responsible for the hacks. Add to that Trump's mysteriously positive comments on Putin. As someone born in 1950 who grew up in the Cold War, I can't believe that this did not make at least some Republicans either not vote or vote for Hillary. Note that this led to many establishment Republican foreign policy people to publicly say they could not support Trump.
- It should also be noted that publicly(Putin's comments) and through branded propaganda like RT and Sputnick, there was a narrative that Trump would get along better with Russia. (Ignoring that when our interests alligned, the Obama administration was already working with Russia.) We saw this here - on DU.
I seriously can not say that without the interference HRC would have won ... or would have lost. The election was close. In addition, there is the elephant (or FBI head) in the room. The DNC hack info was right before a very positive convention -- and HRC was not seen by either pundits or polls to have been hurt by that info. I suspect because it really would not have been news that the majority of DNC operatives were supporting HRC and had been since she left the State Department -- remember early on in public polls she pulled about 70 percent. Where you CAN see a huge shift in the race was when Comey put out the letter 13 days before the election that there were more emails on Weiner's computer.
It is far easier to make a case that Comey changed the election. (Now, maybe he was working for the Russians ..... not likely.)
The issue though is NOT that Russia succeeded in changing the election, but that 1) they tried and for that we issued sanctions as punishment and 2) people allied with the sitting President may have been in conversation with them at the time and 3) in the worst case there was an offered quid por quo -- removal of the sanctions issued because of Ukraine and Crimea.
The NYT and WP stories are addressing 2 and 3. This is - like many things under Trump - a completely new world. The idea that either party would not reject a foreign country - and a hostile one at that - interfering in an American election is beyound shocking and I have no idea where the line is for treason. Note that condoning and allowing interference has not been proven yet, and whether it was successful or not doen't matter.
= new reply since forum marked as read
