The key question, for my argument at least, is whether it should have been apparent to the Obama administration in fall 2016 that the defensive measures they took would not sufficiently safeguard the fairness of the election.
That’s what I mean by hindsight bias. Looking back, we know the election results. But for Obama’s strategy to be inherently incorrect, it would have to be reasonable to believe in the fall of 2016 that:
- Trump was likely to win.
- The reason he was going to win was Russian interference.
- The defensive measures the administration took would be insufficient to counter that interference.
- More drastic measures would successfully counter the interference and make the election fair.
But few believed #1. Even with hindsight we don’t know #2. #3 is uncertain with hindsight (even if you assume #2) and couldn’t have been clear at the time. And #4 is impossible to know now, and couldn’t have been known in the fall.
On top of all that, you’d have to believe there’s no downside to stoking public panic about the integrity of the electoral process. As I wrote in the article, I definitely think there’s a downside to that.
