The “red alert” response you lay out makes for an interesting thought experiment.

It wasn’t one of the options the White House was considering, and there’s some hindsight bias in your advocacy. There’s a lot to be said for the president projecting clam — Obama believed that at least as much as any other president — and if Hillary won, you probably wouldn’t be faulting Obama for choosing not to press the panic button in fall 2016.

But, running with the thought experiment, I think you’re right that going full red alert could have countered accusations Obama was just playing politics. Trump, McConnell, and large portions of the right-wing media would have leveled the accusation anyway, but Democrats, independents, mainstream and left-wing media outlets, and some national security Republicans could have drowned them out. National emergencies have a way of subsuming regular politics.

I also think you’re right that Russia didn’t have an ace up its sleeve as far as election interference goes. But that’s not the only reason to be cautious about escalation. The red alert response you suggest would mean the United States was treating Russia’s actions as an act of war. That requires an act of war in response. The downside risk is therefore not a secret election hacking weapon, but armed conflict — over Syria, perhaps — or at least a new Cold War.