It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer had choice words for Hillary Clinton in an interview over the weekend, blasting the Democratic presidential nominee for blaming Russia for her loss to now-President Trump -- who picked up on the jab in a Monday morning tweet. “When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”
What does Chuck know that we do not?
Conservatives sent Trump to the White House, as a Republican candidate. Now Republicans are not getting it done.
Schumer's BS is just an attempt to divert Democrat exposures that have all but wrecked the Party. It's too late for them I believe. They've toasted themselves into ashes.
A serious third party would be able to gain ground in this midterm imo.
What I see as a possibility is a wide open field. Everyone knew Trump was not a Republican. Trump was a branded celebrity and THAT is what got him into the game in the first place. And he did it, to a large degree, without the support of that party. He relied upon the media coverage of his celebrity. Likewise, in 2020 that lesson may have been learned and celebs from across the board may come out of the woodwork. Business tycoons, sports heros, movie stars, hell maybe even a Kardashian or two could grab enough headlines and internet strength to make the run. All without any party affiliation at all.
The fact is that even with interference by Russia, the Democrats should have been able to put up a candidate who could have handily beaten Trump. They even had one in Sanders but the DNC leadership worked to the benefit of Clinton instead.
Another, perhaps bigger issue is that there's no practical way of gauging what impact Russian meddling had on the outcome and insisting that the Kremlin managed to sway votes ultimately only serves to alienate those who voted for Trump. After all, nobody wants to be told, let alone actually believe, that they've been effectively manipulated — though of course, they'll eagerly believe it of "the other side." That's of course assuming that interference can be both definitively proven and with facts in hand, that most of the public can be convinced of it. Then there are the issues of attacking the integrity of the election and addressing our own domestic propaganda and how voters are manipulated by politicians, the media, campaigns, etc.
So in my opinion, it's a non-starter and it seems that this was recognized early on as few have taken the step of making the claim that without the meddling, Trump would have lost.