We're talking about it - that's a measurable impact.
If you want to argue it didn't have a substantial impact then please provide proof that the media amplifying the Russia (and related narrative) as it has - distracting us from the real, underlying issues - wasn't substantial. Please prove that Russia's actions, including brigading Reddit and other communities via their propaganda farms, didn't provide talking points to the media to distract the majority of us from the important, underlying issues.
Perhaps you're trying to gate keep by limiting the scope by saying Russia's efforts didn't directly have a substantial impact? But then you're ignoring the full picture in order for your argument to be "more right" but still not correct; Russia's direct actions don't exist in a silo - likewise Trump would be nothing if mainstream media didn't amplify every insane word coming out of him.
As POTUS candidate Andrew Yang is pointing out to us: it's automation, not immigrants, that have been taking jobs leading to Americans suffering and lead to the symptom of Trump; as Noam Chomsky also rightfully pointed out, Netanyahu of Israel greatly interfered - directly - with American politics.
The mainstream media is directly and indirectly part of the dis-ease, and has allowed such dis-ease progression. Trump, a tyrant wannabe-never-will-be, understands this mechanism of mainstream media (reach, the attention economy, manipulation) - in general called marketing, Trump being a charlatan or false prophet vs. a genuine entrepreneur with true compassion - an ideal example being Yang to contrast Trump to, regardless of what you think about his policies, how he holds himself, his character.
Curious what your thoughts are, what your response will be.
As I've repeatedly said. It's on those who claim something happened to provide proof that it did. You haven't provided a single link of evidence to support your argument. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you haven't provided any. Certainly you've seen some data to back up your assertion? I know I haven't but I'm willing to look at anything anyone finds.
My comment was the "link." You're still avoiding engaging with what I'm presenting to you in order to maintain your narrative.
I can't tell if you're just spouting rhetoric or genuinely you aren't able to connect the ideas I'm presenting: do you not believe that mainstream media amplifies whatever news there is? Did you see no "Russia" news? Is that what you're arguing?
I'm arguing that the mainstream media made up the Russian story. Not one person has been able to provide any demonstration that the 100k in FB ads that were purchased from Russia (maybe by the government, maybe not) had any impact whatsoever. As someone who's worked in online ads for > 15 years, I will tell you that 100k in ads will not have a national impact. Especially when both other parties are paying hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.
Re: Yang. I think he's a very interesting candidate! He's innovative and providing a fresh perspective. That doesn't have anything to do with the Russian "hacking" myth the media has been pushing full-blast though. $100k of Facebook ads is nothing. I'm 100% sure the media isn't pushing this to help Yang, but instead traditional mainstream politicians like Clinton.
It isn't just "100k of Facebook ads" as you're trying to gate keep the proof point to being.
Respond to every point I make even re: Trump leveraging mainstream media to his advantage.
It's odd, interesting to me, that you're expecting concrete quantitative data, yet trying to use qualitative proof points - while not accepting qualitative proof points that I'm outlining for you.