Chait and Drum and a few others are in conniptions that Trump has said Russian hacking had ‘no effect’ or ‘zero effect’ on the election. They accuse him of lying, based essentially on the matter of truth that the Russian hacking / leaking happened. Cuz, because it happened, there’s then a non-zero chance that it impacted the election. If something happened one should assume there’s impact amirite, even if it’s not easily measurable.
This is not wrong…. Russian hacking / leaking did happen, so it did have an impact. … But this argument is a little bit Boolean theoromy and pedantic.
Thing is, there’s about 5 great superseding, easily discernable (in hindsight), understandable as truth reasons why Hillary lost. They are:
** The two term pendulum swing.
** that Hillary was going to underperform Obama significantly no matter what, just because she’s a terrible, uninspiring candidate, deficient in comparison to Obama by several leagues. Do I need to elaborate on this? (No.) Just recall that Obama had a convincing victory in ’08 and a comfortable victory in ’12. If Hillary was not of Obama quality to attain either ‘convincing victory’ or ‘comfortable victory’, what’s left was ‘possible victory’ and ‘defeat’. So it was dicey for her to start. Especially in collision with “two term pendulum swing”
**After that, one must acknowledge the Brexit-ish nature of this country’s political mood right now, which has a bit to do with xenophobic-ness and whatnot… Let’s generalize and say Hillary and the Democrats want open borders. Hillary had the disadvantage of being the non-Brexit candidate at a moment when the country’s mood was Brexit-ish. This was demonstrated by some Wikileaks material but not revealed by it. We knew this already, no one voted for Trump because of the Goldman Sachs speeches. I would assert Stein got some votes because of the Goldman Sachs speech reveals, and the ‘Nader vote’ in this election was not an irrelevancy.
**For an election where the result is constantly characterized as so racial, there’s not a lot of explicit articulation for what this is all about: a white prole and bourgeois reaction against BLM. Hillary and the Democrats are ostensibly BLM sympathetic, Trump is ostensibly “law and order”… it’s right to sense some votes were swung from nominal Democrats to Trump on this topic. [The blog here is fairly pro BLM, btw.]
**You’d think we’re in an era where all the nominal Democrat votes in the heartland that can be swung to the GOP have been, but its probably right that there were XX,000 new ones this time that got swung as a reaction to the Democrats contemporary emphasis on gay wedding cakes and trans bathrooms. [The blog here is pro marriage-equality, btw.]
If the victory depends on 100K votes in WI, MI, OH, and PA, those 5 reasons can explain all 100K votes. At that point, the Russian hacking / leaking is…
That’s the correct word to use, and literally accurate where ‘no effect’ and ‘zero effect’ are not. Trump doesn’t use inconsequential, but that’s not because he’s a lying liar (which he is, generally)… it’s because he’s a man limited to 3 syllable words by his Queens goombah vocabulary.
It’s not like I think this pussy footing with the Russians is a great thing. I don’t.
We can admit Mitt Romney was right now, can’t we, the Russians are the biggest threat…
In a world where Pax-Americana is dead , by the consensus of all, and we don’t give a shit about enlarging the spheres of American style western democracy, I don’t see how Trump is wrong that the logical course is American/Russian collegiality for its own sake (while the Russians continue on as the barbarians that they are…).