And yet, much of your comment history is repeating Trumpist talking points.
> the narrative swung 180 from "2016 was illegitimate, the Russians hijacked it"
That was never the narrative; even the strongest claim of collusion and other misconduct associated with the Trump 2016 campaign were never suggested to make the election illegitimate, they were described as crimes committed by the participants that merited punishment.
> to complete skepticism of any claim of election fraud/interference
Again, no, election interference of the same type as in 2016 continued and accelerated in 2020; this was widely reported. That has nothing to do with fraud and election integrity, the interference is propaganda, not electoral fraud.
> If we're to believe that nothing changed since 2016
Plenty of things have changed since 2016.
> (and according to many Trump is absolutely useless, so our elections must be as vulnerable as they were in 2016)
The problems in 2016 had nothing to do with election security/vulnerability, it was about foreign propaganda efforts directed at manipulating the public to vote in a way that a hostile foreign power believed would serve their interests.
And even if 2016 was an election security issue, the federal government, while it has done role in election security, doesn't run elections and plays only a supporting role in securing them. As useless as the Trump Administration might be, the state elections administrators, of both parties, are generally not useless.
And while Trump might be useless, not all of his early appointees (before he had more certainty of his control of the Republicans in Congress and before he was quite as paranoid about loyalty) early appointees, including people like Chris Krebs, were competent professionals of the type that would generally be appointed to high office under Administrations of either party, and have not, themselves, been useless.
> the interference is propaganda, not electoral fraud
So what do you call an educated, affluent, city-inhabiting social class that makes up the media industry in the US that was all too ready to believe and report on landslide predictions in favor of Biden for the entire election season?
IMO that qualifies as "election influence" too, and your splitting hairs about electoral fraud/integrity/propaganda is a weird way to pivot around the issue that the character of the narrative has changed wildly.
Democrats in general changed their tune (as Republicans do all the time as well).
And yet, much of your comment history is repeating Trumpist talking points.
> the narrative swung 180 from "2016 was illegitimate, the Russians hijacked it"
That was never the narrative; even the strongest claim of collusion and other misconduct associated with the Trump 2016 campaign were never suggested to make the election illegitimate, they were described as crimes committed by the participants that merited punishment.
> to complete skepticism of any claim of election fraud/interference
Again, no, election interference of the same type as in 2016 continued and accelerated in 2020; this was widely reported. That has nothing to do with fraud and election integrity, the interference is propaganda, not electoral fraud.
> If we're to believe that nothing changed since 2016
Plenty of things have changed since 2016.
> (and according to many Trump is absolutely useless, so our elections must be as vulnerable as they were in 2016)
The problems in 2016 had nothing to do with election security/vulnerability, it was about foreign propaganda efforts directed at manipulating the public to vote in a way that a hostile foreign power believed would serve their interests.
And even if 2016 was an election security issue, the federal government, while it has done role in election security, doesn't run elections and plays only a supporting role in securing them. As useless as the Trump Administration might be, the state elections administrators, of both parties, are generally not useless.
And while Trump might be useless, not all of his early appointees (before he had more certainty of his control of the Republicans in Congress and before he was quite as paranoid about loyalty) early appointees, including people like Chris Krebs, were competent professionals of the type that would generally be appointed to high office under Administrations of either party, and have not, themselves, been useless.