and guess who won?

... voting machines after the CIA presented them with there could be Russian tampering.

That sort of means, to me at least, that their servers were hacked, with their main repository of data and information exposed.

They were phished. I guess that's a hack, but it's a distributed hack. A low-grade hack, at best, email account by email account.

My county's government was hacked a few years ago. (It wasn't big news. For good reason.) Somebody managed to figure out some passwords and enter the system. They scammed some info and could have made a mess with some records. That's different from having some county official click on the wrong link and have his emails forwarded to somebody or have his particular computer compromised.

The lingo used is imprecise. Hacking sounds serious; but most of the hacking of the DNC and RNC was trivial.

Now, it's possible that some voter registration systems were hacked, but if so no damage was done. That hacking is different from hacking individual voting machines.

hacking by figuring out passwords or stealing a key.

Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Hacking requires technical skill to exploit an unpatched vulnerability in a computer system. Phishing requires users click on a bad link or something else.

The difference is in how you protect your system. Hacking can be limited through technical means, firewalls, software patches etc. Preventing a user from being social engineered is a lot harder. It's hard to convince users to not click on a link in an email and give their password to some random person.

What's ridiculous is people conflating the two. For example look at the original Guccifer who tried to claim he hacked the Clinton email server. What he actually did was social engineer people like Colin Powell and Sydney Blumenthal which he did with an old computer and a cell phone. Not exactly the tools of a real hacker.