I’m going to be much less genteel, and repost a couple of articles that have bearing, with a hat-tip to om today (Michigan court; and it’s not the only one coming in a too many days late and a lot of dollars short), and Barry earlier this week.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/the_sovereign_crime_of_industrial_scale_vote_fraud.html

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/05/delingpole-presidential-election-wasnt-rigged-it-was-fortified-says-time-magazine/

Is Trump to blame for this too?

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/

I’m concerned you haven’t found a more sophisticated or nuanced argument beyond “Orange Man Bad.” Sad.

Jeb! or Kasich needs a better cheer leader. Or is it Ben Sasse you are pining for?

I think the Gramscian march was especially important in the law schools. After all, future judges are trained there, and in the years since I went to law school, the teaching of law has gone way to the left. So the court decisions are all part of that. Also, in order for fraud to be perpetrated if a lot of people cooperate in that process, you have to have a lot of people who believe the ends justify the means, and to do that you have to have undermined traditional Western values and morality.

I mean, the least Trump should have done was to tell the media (firmly but politely? with “Presidential” mien? with JFK-esque humor and charm?) that they were reporting things that were, um, not exactly accurate…. (Whereupon the media would no doubt have quickly apologized and corrected the record…immediately!)

I’m pretty sure, however, that most if not all of the blame CAN be placed on Trump—for having won in 2016. If he had had the decency to lose, he wouldn’t have been able—even if he had wanted—to subsequently expose himself as such a “resounding failure”….

No doubt, the odious Gramscian march is critically important overall; but if one holds (as I do) that the election was clearly fraudulent, then the Gramscian march has absolutely NOTHING to do with the election RESULTS.

In fact, one can claim the opposite: that Trump’s victory denied—subverted, upended, stolen—by the Democrats’ “brilliant(?) tactical success”(?)) demonstrated clearly that a large swath of the country rejects this Gramscian-inspired “fundamental transformation”.

Moreover, one can make the same claim even if one insists that “of course Trump lost.”

We’re talking past each other, it would seem.
(It can happen. Even at the best of times.)

And yes, what you say is true: Biden is firmly ensconced in the WH, having—obviously!—captured the imagination of the nation!; having—obviously—run a stellar, even brilliant, campaign; having—obviously—won the HIGHEST number of votes EVUH!!

A RECORD!!! MY OH MY, WHAT A VICTORY IT WAS!!!

And indeed, that really WAS quite an extraordinary campaign he ran, wasn’t it?….
Perfection. Absolute perfection. (I still can’t get over it, so it seems…)

But as you say, none of this matters. He’s in the WH. (Right?) Nor can one argue with “success”, can one…?

So I’ll finish up with this:
Might it just be possible that the truly “relevant question” is not so much the “resounding failure” of Trump’s tactics (how many votes did Trump manage to win, again?) but the “extraordinary success” of the “tactics” of the Democratic Party and its adjuncts.

In other words, maybe “the relevant question is. “How well did the tactics of the Democrat ‘cabal’ fare in the real world….”

But once again, OMMV….

There were plenty of legal challenges (as well as rhetoric) from the Trump administration and others on the right during the summer and fall of 2020. Some failed, but some actually succeeded. I’ve written about this before. Was Trump to blame for the decisions of the liberal courts that went against him? I fail to see how.

See, for example, this post as well as this one.

In addition, I watched plenty of those COVID press conferences. I didn’t see him “acting like a clown.” Most of the time he seemed well-informed and to be taking things quite seriously. I didn’t see very single moment or watch every single presentation, but I watched many of them.

Trump underestimated the strength of the forces arrayed against him. That was possibly his biggest flaw, but I don’t blame him for it since it was hard to know – sort of like turning over a rock an having bugs crawl out. And perhaps he didn’t actually underestimate them. Perhaps he thought it would be a really hard fight but nevertheless worth fighting.

When you say his tactics were “a resounding failure,” you are making two errors I believe. The first is that we don’t know the final result; it’s early yet. The second is you don’t have a clue what could have succeeded. I think that, with the tactics of the left and how far they had already gotten with the Gramscian march prior to Trump’s election, the die was already cast. So although I hold out some hope that time will reveal a better result, I am actually quite pessimistic that such a result is possible, or that it was still possible in 2016.

Wasn’t part of Trump’s appeal, though, that he was uniquely willing and able to fight fire with fire and counter the knives and flails of the left? Trump did exactly what he said he would. It didn’t work. It blew up in his face, and ours.

If you want to be angry at someone about that, blame Trump. It was Trump who didn’t have any plan to counter Democrats’ election shenanigans in the summer and fall (when it actually might have made a difference). It was Trump who acted like a clown at his daily COVID press conferences to turn what should have been a strength on policy into a weakness on form. It was Trump who failed to prepare for the first debate and came off looking like an unhinged maniac. In an election where 44k votes could have changed the outcome, these things mattered.

I don’t buy the defenses of Trump either. The press is dishonest and partisan. Yes. Democrats are dirty hypocrites. You bet. Republicans didn’t back up his fraud claims. No, they didn’t.

All of these things were predictable, though. The press and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are who they are. Republicans were never going to throw out 250 years of norms and tradition without smoking gun-levels of hard evidence that fraud changed the outcome of the election.

The relevant question is how well did Trump’s tactics fare in the real world. The answer is that they were a resounding failure.

I excerpt at length to show that, as with the Sovereign Crime (h/t Barry), the Democrats (aka Leftist Party of America aka Uniparty of the Deep State) have been running the same play book for a long, long time. Having had nearly unqualified success under Obama (and prior presidents), they are back in business on steroids.

June 15, 2013
Pigford: The Unexamined Obama Administration Scandal
By Jim O’Sullivan
The Obama administration has again been protected from a troubling scandal by the mainstream media (MSM) using the tactic of omission to simply ignore the scandal, its reality, and the negative blowback attendant to a disturbing story. As sunlight began to illuminate the scandal’s inconvenient and troubling facts, charges of racism were used to temporarily silence those sounding the alarm. Seemingly, the alarm-ringers’ only crime was having the temerity to respond with a politically incorrect point of view to abuses.

The underreported scandal referenced is generally identified as “Pigford.” Pigford’s germination occurred in 1997 as a lawsuit (Pigford vs. Glickman) alleging that 91 African-American farmers were unfairly denied loans by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) due to racial discrimination which prevented the complainants from farming. In 1999, the black farmers won their case.

Pigford has the distinction of being an out-of-control waste of taxpayer funds and/or a cynical attempt by the Obama administration to curry favor with certain minority groups to which neither President Obama nor Attorney General Eric Holder can plead ignorance of involvement. Both have had knowledge since the court ruled on the Pigford lawsuit; in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama supported and voted for the funding of the initial settlement. Since then, Eric Holder (and Obama) have been involved in overseeing and managing the Pigford “judgment fund.”

Yet can Pigford be fairly described as a scandal?

Pigford began innocently enough: as a lawsuit to redress a perceived wrong against a group of 91. But then the number climbed to 400….then 1,600…then…

The number of black farmers has metastasized — nay, exploded — and the aggrieved group now includes not only blacks, but Hispanics, Native Americans, and females. In fact over 90,000 people have filed claims seeking a payment under the terms of the original Pigford court ruling. That decision, now referred to as Pigford #1, was anticipated to cost approximately $120 million, including legal fees.

Pigford #2 is the appellation used to identify an expanded payment regime that funds more payments to African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and females. This regimen grew out of the fact that thousands of claimants missed the original Pigford #1 filing deadline of October 12, 1999. Interestingly, Native American potential claimants were estimated at 5,300, while plaintiff lawyers pegged the exposure at an estimated 19,000 Native Americans. The judgment fund announced by Agricultural Secretary Thomas Vilsack and Eric Holder in 2010 was expanded from just over $120 million to $1.25 billion, given the expectation of many more filers.

However, the explosion of claimants has caused payouts to reach $4.4 billion and has swelled legal fees to over $130 million. More importantly, the claim’s process created a rush to get a share of the monies allocated to the judgment fund, even if no real claim existed. Essentially, the process encouraged people to lie and spawned a cottage industry. Claimants had only to file applications for a $50,000 payment by stating that they had “thought about” applying for loans to become a farmer. Proof of a claimant’s intent to farm also included a statement from that petitioner saying he or she had attempted to farm by planting a batch of tomatoes in his or her backyard and having that statement verified by a family member. In essence, the need to be a farmer at the time of the alleged discriminatory actions by the USDA was not a requirement to share in the financial redress.

Fraud was endemic to the claims process — for example, every apartment in a New York City building received a settlement of at least $50,000. Further, some families received checks of $50,000 for each family member (see the NYT’s fraud identification narrative of 4-26-13). These payments were dispensed by the judgment fund’s monitor, whose management and control fell to the Executive Branch and Justice Department. Due to the application vetting process, the payouts were criticized by both Representative Steve King (D-IA) and journalist Andrew Breitbart as payoffs to Obama’s/Democrats’ preferred groups to gain a favored political position with those entities.

King and Breitbart had the courage to indelicately point out that some of payouts were ridiculous, fraudulent, and highly politicized. Both Congressman King and Breitbart were predictably charged with racism by many in the MSM; only because The New York Times printed their recent investigatory story have some MSM members begrudgingly ceded the veracity of King’s and Breitbart’s concerns.

The combination of the racial criticism, the MSM’s silence regarding Pigford, and the quarantine on additional Pigford narratives subsequent to the NY Times’ article have emphasized the media’s concern for the damage an ongoing discussion of Pigford could cause the president. Potential stories may have included added evidence of rampant fraud and controversy:

Well, you get the picture.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results is not insanity, even if liberalism is now a bona fide mental disease.