The claim that Vladimir Putin favoured Donald Trump never made sense to me. Millions had been funnelled to the Clinton Foundation https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/, Obama was caught on an open mike promising Dimitri Medvedev that he could be "more flexible" to Russia after the 2012 election https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/, and Obama had ridiculed Mitt Romney's concerns regarding Russia during the 2012 campaign with his "the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years" retort. If Vladimir Putin preferred either candidate in 2016, I continue believe that he would have preferred Clinton. I'm pretty certain that he's not come out and said who he preferred, so nobody merely speculating knows for sure, but: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/12/russian-hacking-no-credible-evidence-editorials-debates/106566026/.
I watched the internet ads mention in that last article and they were laughable and cringeworthy. Any claim that they influenced anybody is also laughable.
That article also states:
"What the purveyors of this conspiracy theory don’t want to admit is that Donald Trump’s victory, as well as that of other Republicans, aligns with political trends during the Obama presidency.
"Under Obama, the Democratic Party lost more congressional, state legislative and governor’s seats than under any other president. The party is the weakest it has been since the 1920s in the number of political seats it holds nationwide."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/, a couple of weeks before the election, began with the headline "No, the presidential election can't be hacked".
Democrat claims that Russia hacked the DNC server remain unsubstantiated. The DNC refused to turn it over to federal investigators for a proper analysis. Why not? They would almost certainly not have anything to hide, would they? And, if I remember accurately, it was assessed that at least five entities hacked Clinton's illegal private e-mail server.
While I will likely never trust Russia, having actively participated in the Cold War for many years, I am much more worried about China and militant Islam.
The Russian boogeyman was a Democrat diversion then and remains so now. They were certain of a win, and still can't believe that they lost or accept why they lost. They picked a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign, in which they took a large group of voters for granted and then insulted them, and failed to generate much interest anywhere outside of their safe areas (compare the sizes, frequency, and energy/enthusiasm levels between Clinton and Donald Trump rallies).
I was caught in an unexpected and lengthy gap between contracts during the 2016 US election and had a lot of free time to watch it closely, and found it highly entertaining on many levels.
I quickly came to the opinion that Donald Trump was likely to win (but not assured) based upon some largely unconventional amateur analysts alongside some more-established and conventional ones. The best, and most accurate, poll was an LA Times one that used larger and more diversified samples and had been accurate in previous elections. It did not favour Clinton as the others did. One amateur specialist tracked the relative sales of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise; anti-Clinton sales beat anti-Trump sales by eight to one.
I've trimmed down my unconventional amateur analyst list considerably, as I have much less time of late, so only monitor those who performed the best and have the least fluff. Backgrounds vary.
One (HA Goodman), who billed himself as "progressive" in 2016, was a Jill Stein supporter at the start, then switched to Bernie Sanders when she dropped out, got pissed off when the DNC betrayed him, became more critical of Clinton specifically and the Democrats in general over time, and began to predict that Donald Trump would win and gave clear reasons why. It was interesting to watch him repudiate his "progressive" identity, denounce the Democrats, and eventually become an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter over time.
Another (Bill Still/Still Report) is a much older, retired professional journalist and author with a good network of trusted sources, very Christian and a long-time Republican supporter.
Another (Styxhexenhammer666) is a millenial, libertarian, Christian-cum-satanist-cum-pagan, modern-day hippy who has voted Democrat in the past and is now a fairly solid Donald Trump supporter but will freely switch to whoever most aligns with his own beliefs and opinions.
Another (Tim Pool/Timcast) bills himself as centre-left, would never vote Republican under any circumstances, likes neither Donald Trump nor the socialist-loony side of the Democratic Party (or any of those vying for the Democrat candidacy) but will give both praise and criticism where he sees it due.
Another (Anthony Brian Logan/ABL) is a black former-Democrat who is now also solidly Republican and a Donald Trump supporter.
Another (Bill Whittle, usually with sidekicks Steve Green and Scott Ott) is a mature conservative who was originally not a Donald Trump fan and can still be critical. Scott Ott generally plays the devil's advocate role, and quite well.
Another (Liz Wheeler) is a very conservative and Catholic millennial, who reports for One American News Network which seems to be growing.
And then there's Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian with a strong Canadian connection, including a French Canadian mother.
I still watch Scott Adams (Dilbert author) occasionally; he has some interesting insights.
I also favour National Review Online. Although it's conservative-leaning, there is a wide variety of viewpoints in one source.
I will also, occasionally, check other left-leaning sources that I find credible and interesting even if I disagree with them (Jimmy Dore, for one).
I put less and less faith in mainstream media, but do occasionally find some worthwhile articles or videos therein and will (still) not discount them entirely. In general, I find Canadian MSM to be more credible than their US counterparts, but less so than I'd like.
Overall, though, I find better, deeper analyses and more accurate predictions in the amateur/semi-professional/independent/small operations that I've been watching/reading for almost three years. They also report about many things that the traditional media ignore.
