I don't want to comment too greatly on the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in last year's election, particularly since the investigation is ongoing and there's still a lot of information which has yet to come out. The second we think there's an "ah ha!" moment, something else comes out which complicates things. It's a slow drip that hasn't exonerated anyone yet, but hasn't exactly given us a smoking gun.
Personally, for every new revelation, I only end up with more questions than answers. A few of mine:
If the Russians were backing Clinton's only two major competitors (Sanders and Trump), what would the election have looked like without Russian interference?
More specifically, would it even have looked like an election? As it stood, most of the other Democrats seeking the nomination dropped out before a single vote was cast, and O'Malley dropped out after the Iowa caucus. The only other candidate in the race after the very first caucus was Bernie Sanders, who managed to both out-fund raise and out-spend Hillary Clinton's campaign in the primaries. That by itself certainly raises questions about where Sen. Sanders' funding was all coming from, but assuming Russian involvement was steering money to Sanders, why was there no other candidate in the Democratic primaries receiving any significant support? There was no incumbent in the primary, yet Sec. Clinton was treated like an incumbent by the fundraising class. Why?
As for Trump, Sec. Clinton out-fund raised now-President Trump by a cool $230 million. It wasn't enough to carry her over the finish line, but why were these her only two major competitors? Why was absolutely nobody else able to even come close to challenging her?
The American political establishment seemed content to simply allow Sec. Clinton to have this one, leaving the field open for her to win in a walk. The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum, and in place of American candidates challenging her candidacy, we got Russian candidates, instead. Because this is not the first time Russia has tried to influence our elections. It's just the first time they've been able to do so successfully. And if it wasn't because there was nobody else challenging a frankly weak candidate, then I'd like to know exactly what was different about this election that allowed them to throw it to a vulgar, semi-literate game show host.
No comments:
Post a Comment