Impressive. Voters in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York must have remained immune to purported Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. How else to explain those four states’ voters giving Clinton a 7.8 million vote buffer over Trump?
The remaining 46 states, plus Washington, DC, must have succumbed to Russian covert actions because they afforded Trump a 5 million vote advantage, leaving the current 2.8 million popular vote gap in Clinton’s favor.
But . . . wait a minute. Trump lost 16 of those remaining 46 states, plus Washington, DC.
Final number of states won: Trump 30 and Clinton 20, plus Washington, DC.
So Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco voters, in fact the ten largest U.S. media markets, didn’t bite the Russian bait, while suburban and rural Rust Belt, Midwest, West, and Southern voters, not residents of large cities, did.
The increasingly apoplectic media’s story, despite the ‘intelligence’ they toss my way, sounds invidious, discordant, and approaches sedition.
Addendum: 80 of the 100 largest U.S. cities went for Clinton. Eighty of the most populous concentrations of urban voters living in U.S. nexuses of mass communications and representing more than 53 million people were unswayed by alleged Russian influence, while twenty cities representing only 9 million voted in favor of Trump. Those people hardest to reach were those the mainstream media would have me believe most susceptible to covert influence. It doesn’t add up. Did the ’80s suddenly call after all and want their foreign policy back?