I'm sure the Russian bots had some minimal influence, although as Nate Silver points out their influence has yet to be documented. But to the extent that they did it's because, like the Comey letter, they reinforced in the minds of progressive and independent voters problems for which Clinton herself was responsible - e.g., her private email server, her close ties to Wall Street, etc.

On the other hand, railing about Benghazi and Vince Foster for example, probably didn't harm Hillary because those predisposed to believe that nonsense weren't going to vote for her in the first place.

It's the same as the "pussy grabber" story which Clinton thought/hoped would end Trump's Presidential ambitions. Unlike the false Benghazi and Vince Foster stories, Trump really did use ugly misogynistic language and is a sexual harasser but those who think of him in that way weren't liable to vote for him in the first place.

It's interesting that Charles Blow, whom RMRD cites with approval, seems to think that black millennials were especially susceptible to the bots even though African-Americans were Hillary's most loyal constituency by far. The problem with Blow's argument is that the examples he provides of suppressive evidence don't support his contention.

Blow acknowledges the accuracy of Michelle Alexander's critique of Hillary Clinton, although he surely doesn't believe that like Alexander that she didn't "deserve the black vote." He also blames Killer Mike and Colin Kaepernick for turning black millennials against Hillary. Say what you want about Alexander, Killer Mike, and Kaepernick, none is a Russian bot.

From Blow's February 18 column:

Now, it can surely be argued that the numbers for women and other minorities might have been even higher had it not been for the suppressive efforts, but at least their turnout numbers didn’t decline. For black people, they did. It is entirely possible that many, if not most of, the black people who decided not to vote in this election would have done so even without Trump and Russian prodding. Also, President Obama wasn’t on the ballot.

Indeed, early in the primaries, Michelle Alexander, author of the acclaimed book “The New Jim Crow” — which has attained near Bible stature among some social justice activists — laid out a strong philosophical argument for “why Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the black vote.” It hinged largely on crime and economic policies enacted when Bill Clinton was president, policies Hillary then supported.

Even after Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination, rapper Killer Mike, a prominent Bernie Sanders supporter and surrogate, was still promoting the position that “If you’re voting for Trump or Hillary Clinton, you’re voting for the same thing.”

On Election Day, many young black people held their noses and voted, commenting on social media with the hashtag #IGuessImWithHer. But many simply abstained.

NCD - one of your more charming tactics is to attribute to me words that I never said or wrote. I did not write that I would only criticize Trump if paid to do so, I wrote that I would only write what you want me to write if you paid me to do so. That's a little bit different isn't it? Of course, it's much harder for you to dispute what I actually wrote than what you pretend that I wrote.

The Clintons got paid over $150 million for giving speeches to corporations and rich people between January 2001 and May 2015. The Russians, pursuant to the Mueller indictment spent, at the absolute most just under $45 million. Ultimately, Clinton lost by about 80,000 votes. But of course the $45 million was dispersed throughout our 350 million people nation and indeed the world. Moreover, that money did not go to individual voters but rather to Facebook and twitter ads. The money that each of the Clintons received for speechifying went to both of them. Which do you think is more likely to have had an impact?

Foreign nations attempt to influence elections. I agree that we should try to safeguard our elections from foreign interference. How do you propose doing so?