Anyone Consider Russian Hacking?
We know they did it in 2016, and we know Trump welcomed their help. We know McConnell and his cohorts did nothing to stop it from happening this year. So the question I've been wondering for a couple of days now (and that I haven't seen anyone discuss on this forum yet) is why we're not talking about THAT as a possible reason for how close this election was. Maybe it's not all the "doom and gloom" explanations we've been hearing lately (i.e. "our message just doesn't resonate," or, "America is more racist than we expected," or whatever), but it's actually outside interference making it LOOK that way.
I know we were all a little disappointed in how close it was, and are wondering how the polls could be so off, but what if the polls WEREN'T off at all, and it was the Russian hacking that made it LOOK close? The experts have been saying all along that we can overwhelm the Russian hacking efforts if we vote in big enough numbers. Isn't it possible that the Russians DID hack this election, but we just voted in overwhelming enough numbers to overcome their interference? Couldn't THAT possibly be the reason for losing Florida and Ohio and Texas and Iowa and some other States that most people expected Biden to be extremely competitive in? And why his margins of victory in some of these States that looked pretty safe all along were smaller than expected?
As I said, for as much of a worry as Russian hacking has been for the last 4 years, I'm surprised nobody has been talking about the possibility that they actually DID hack the vote again this year, but the Biden vote was just too big for them to overcome. Especially since we KNOW they were going to try to do it again AND were getting help from the Republicans, who refused to do anything to stop them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
also said (repeatedly) that there was no evidence of altered votes. Now if you want to take up the story of what they did, unequivocally, do -- disinformation, destabilization, polarization -- as well as coordination (data, information and leaks) with one of the campaigns ... I think that the intelligence people have already announced that, yes, efforts to influence the electorate (and the election) were in play for this cycle too. No big surprise.
The difference is, a lot of the tinfoil hats insist on a scenario where some Boris is sneaking into some voting machine somewhere -- and flipping D votes to Rs. What the rest of us are trying to tell them is -- they probably aren't, and furthermore they don't really HAVE to!
And incidentally -- you couldn't have scripted an outcome more to Putin's taste (or agenda) -- that what you see rolling out before you today. And all delivered to him by the American voter.
----- 
-----
How about Ivanka's voting machines?
While the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings were bipartisan, they came on a day when Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, moved again to block consideration of election security legislation put forward by Democrats. [snip]
And despite the warnings about the Russia threat, he argues that Congress has already done enough — passing $380 million worth of grants for states to update their election systems and supporting executive branch agencies as they make their own changes. Some administration officials have suggested that the issue is not getting enough high-level attention because President Trump equates any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. [snip]
Mr. McConnell has held fast to his position despite withering criticism from Democrats, and agitation from some in his party who want the Senate to move more modest, bipartisan legislation. The Democratic proposal, already passed by the House, would have given the states hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, mandated the use of backup paper ballots and required risk-limiting postelection audits.
Moscow Mitch has earned his nickname for many reasons.
...but until we have something solid we can't wave it around as an explanation.
Same goes for reviewing 2016, which also should be done by a DoJ that isn't controlled by Putin's pigeon.
And I am expressly NOT repeating the phrase Putin's pigeon just to ruffle anyone's orange feathers, I swear. 
