Your question appears to presuppose that the "hacking" had an actual effect.
The only alleged "hacking" was of John Podesta's email account; that has been attributed to Russian Intelligence or Russian hackers (RH).
The only widespread dissemination of Podesta's emails was by Wikileaks. The head [Julian Assange] of Wikileaks denies that the information published by Wikileaks was from Russian intelligence. Assange has stated that the information published by Wikileaks was from a disgruntled DNC staffer (this should be considered plausible as it was widely known to staffers that Podesta's email password was "password"). Following the mysterious murder of Seth Rich, Assange has suggested that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC documents given to Wikileaks (http://bit.ly/2j9zZfE).
If Wikileaks did obtain the Podesta emails from Seth Rich, and not Russian hackers [RH] as the US Government alleges, then one must ask, 'where did the RH disseminate the information obtained by hacking Podesta's emails?'
There does not appear to be any reference to the source of Podesta's email from anyone other than Wikileaks.
Thus, you must decide if Assange is telling the truth and Wikileaks did not receive its information from RH.
Or, if Assange is lying to protect the RH.
IF ASSANGE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, that Wikileaks received the Podesta emails from a disgruntled insider, then THE HACKING HAD NO EFFECT because it was not published or widely disseminated in any fashion.
If Assange is lying and the Podesta emails (published by Wikileaks) were obtained from RH, the the effect of hacking on the election would be limited to the Podesta emails published by Wikileaks - there has been no other allegation of hacked material being released.
Podesta's emails did not real a 'smoking gun' that could be used to specifically condemn Hillary Clinton. There were vague references that allowed some to allege that Podesta and Clinton were involved in child sex trafficking (pizza-gate) and that the various women making allegations against Trump were shills for the DNC and Clinton.
The actual effect of these revelations seems to be minimal, if any. Clinton supporters were not appalled by the emails and Trump supporters claimed validation of their opinion of Clinton and Democrats, by extension.
Thus, it is doubtful that the hacked/leaked Podesta emails had any real sway on the election. Democrats ignored the emails and those who were ALREADY Trump supporters reveled in the releases. Independents balked from the Byzantine maze of information contained by the emails. In any case, their sway was minimal.
As an aside, one commentator has been advocating that the hack was by US Intelligence (http://bit.ly/2hY3S50) "Judge Napolitano: U.S. Intelligence Behind Leaking Clinton Emails To Wikileaks, Not Russian Hackers"
This refers to emails from Hillary Clinton's server. Considering that Clinton had surrendered her email server to the FBI in March, 2015, the US intelligence (CIA/NSA) would have had to have hacked the server before 2014, or even as early as her term as Secretary of State, 2009-2013 (the servers were offline after March, 2015 and no one neither CIA/NSA nor RH would have been able to access the drives).
Alternatively, one would have to say that the CIA/NSA conspired with the FBI who had her drives in 2015-2016. A hacking by CIA/NSA and possibly FBI would have been a major affector with the controversy surrounding the FBI announcements that Mrs Clinton wouldn't be indicted and then changed to 'the case was still open' only eleven days before the election.
So, if you consider the Clinton emails as hacked, then, in conjunction with the FBI, there probably was a significant swaying of the electorate from Mrs. Clinton.