First, they selected the Republican candidate they though would be the easiest to defeat. They picked the idiot with no political experience to go against the towering ability of a lawyer, ex-senator and former First Lady. What could possibly go wrong?
(Incidentally, I believe the UK Tories did something similar with the Truss v Sunak vote. They wanted Sunak to win so chose the easiest candidate to beat as his opponent to make it look "democratic".)
However, the people liked what Trump (and Truss) said and many knew not to trust the Clintons. As a result I think the size of the Trump vote just overwhelmed them. You need to get a lot of things into place so that if any one is discovered a judge will be able to say that it was not enough to change the result.
So all the ratios need to be set up beforehand. That affects harvesting, mules, dropboxes, people on hand to fill in extra ballots, voter database contents etc. I think the shear size of the Trump victory just caught them off-guard.
First, they selected the Republican candidate they though would be the easiest to defeat. They picked the idiot with no political experience to go against the towering ability of a lawyer, ex-senator and former First Lady. What could possibly go wrong?
(Incidentally, I believe the UK Tories did something similar with the Truss v Sunak vote. They wanted Sunak to win so chose the easiest candidate to beat as his opponent to make it look "democratic".)
However, the people liked what Trump (and Truss) said and many knew not to trust the Clintons. As a result I think the size of the Trump vote just overwhelmed them. You need to get a lot of things into place so that if any one is discovered a judge will be able to say that it was not enough to change the result.
So all the ratios need to be set up beforehand. That affects harvesting, mules, dropboxes, people on hand to fill in extra ballots, voter database contents etc. I think the shear size of the Trump victory just caught them off-guard.