As I understand it, the current substance of the Conspiracy Theory is that the Russian Government (with the possible collusion of the Trump campaign) hacked the DNC emails and released them through Wikileaks so that Trump would be elected instead of Hillary. Wikileaks denies that Russia was involved with the hack. And no one is disputing the veracity of the released emails. And there’s no evidence whatsoever that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government. Also, no evidence has been shown to indicate Russian involvement; just allegations from anonymous sources. And it’s hard to see what the Russians stood to gain from this given how useful the Obama-Clinton administration has been to their strategic interests.
But you knew all that already, but did you know the FBI tried to warn the Hillary campaign about hacking attempts and the campaign blew them off?
And are the Russians responsible for the astounding arrogance and incompetence of Hillary’s campaign staff; who dumped millions of dollars into places where she was already going to win while neglecting the upper Midwestern states that gave Trump his margin of victory? (And provided a great grifting opportunity for Jill Stein later on.)
But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.
I guess embracing an inane Conspiracy Theory makes it easier for Democrats to continue to live in denial that their campaign (which spent far more than Trump’s) was poorly managed; their candidate was dishonest, corrupt, and out of touch; and their message lacked appeal outside of large coastal urban centers.
“I guess embracing an inane Conspiracy Theory makes it easier for Democrats to continue to live in denial that their campaign (which spent far more than Trump’s) was poorly managed”
I guess dismissing this despite Republicans like Graham, McCain and McConnell confirming Russian involvement makes it easier for you to accept that you are a tool of the Russian government?
Russian hacking is being thrown about as vague. What exactly was hacked? How did it get hacked?
In regards to Podesta’s emails, it was the incompetence of their own IT staff that told him the phising scam email was legitimate. The IT guy admits it was a typo.
Hillary purposely set up a private server that was wide open security wise.
Its their own technical incompetency and hubris that opened them up, not sophisticated hacks.
Honestly, I think “derangement” is a great collective noun for a group of Democrats.
And honestly, we’re supposed to believe Lindsay Graham, whose entire 2016 campaign boiled down to, “Vote for me, fellow geriatrics, and we will increase the taxes on the young so that we old farts may spend our last years in decadence”? In John McCain, who seems to be a better Democrat than Republican? In “we would make good on our midterm promises, but then the media would say mean stuff about us” McConnell? Yeah, right.
With regard to Hillary dumping millions campaigning in Chicago and New Orleans. They honestly believed that they had the Electoral college locked. Michigan and Pennsylvania have been good Democrat strongholds, so, they took them for granted. But they felt that her presidency would not have legitimacy unless she also won the popular vote, because of the stink they themselves raised by in 2000, when Bush won the Electoral College but Gore won the popular vote. So, much like they did in Florida, in 2000, they sought more votes in areas that they already had secured.
In other words, she spent her money trying to win the popular vote, not the presidency.
Because, as we are told now by the betters in the media, the political establishment, and the celebrity industrial complex, the popular vote is really all that should matter.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120
Operationalizing the Strategy
Pied Piper Candidates
There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage
on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the
lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we
don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually
represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them
seriously.
Undermining Their Message & Credibility
Most of the more-established candidates will want to focus on building a winning general election coalition. The “Pied
Pipers” of the field will mitigate this to a degree, but more will need to be done on certain candidates to undermine
their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters. In this regard, the goal here would be to show that they are just the same as every other GOP candidate: extremely conservative on
these issues.