The reason for the Democrat blame game with Vladimir Putin and “fake news” is to find an excuse that will satisfy donors.
The last couple of weeks have featured one Democrat blame game after another. Whether it is “fake news” or the Kremlin or FBI Director James Comey, the Clinton campaign, the Obama White House, and the media (which belongs to both) have been insisting that this election was stolen in some way.
I originally thought the point of all this was to undermine and/or delegitimize and/or even overturn the Trump presidency somehow. There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats would regard any such outcome to be good.
But it also seems transparently risky. Essentially, the Democrats are doubling down on the same behavior that lost them the election. Why would they want to take the risk?
But there is another factor that I have written about before that could also explain the Democrat blame game: money.
The call for a deep and detailed accounting of how Clinton lost a race that she and her donors were absolutely certain she’d win didn’t begin immediately after the election — there was too much shock over her defeat by Donald Trump, and overwhelming grief. Her initial conference call with top backers, which came just days after the outcome, focused primarily on FBI Director Jim Comey’s late campaign-season intervention.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. “It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads.”
So, maybe the main reason for the Democrat blame game, with the White House, the media, and some friendly “leakers” in the CIA, is to try to convince donors that the loss was not their fault. They want to convince them that they can invest in a new Democrat candidate, entrust their money to the same people, and expect a return on their investment.
The story mentions that some wealthy donors are even considering running for office themselves rather than spending their money on another candidate.
The problem is that, despite Hillary Clinton’s high negatives, Donald Trump’s victory was not just about Hillary. Democrats have been losing ground in governorships, state legislatures, and Congress since 2010. So the people were rejecting Democrats even when Obama was President—perhaps because Obama was President.
Democrat donors might need to consider if the American people are simply not Leftist enough to support most Democrat candidates.
That may be the truth that the Democrat blame game is designed to evade.