[Political Junkie Too]

I saw your points, but you were vague with mapping to your list, so I tried to tease it out from you.

You said "I think I take Sidney’s pov, while you take Rudy’s pov...", so you put me into a corner first.

That said, you also said "they do not necessarily cancel each other out," so that leads me to think that you put both the "Sidney" and "Rudy" scenarios into the same camp, or at least not opposing camps.

But... I can't tell if you really mean that "Rudy" means your #3 "local criminal activity and "Sidney" means your #1 "Democrat orchestration," (or vice versa) in which I don't see much overlap. It would be nice if you could explain that thought more deeply.

Also, you added foreign interference and local community-level politics into the mix as additional considerations, which I think (based on you saying you're probably in the Sidney camp), was just to muddy the waters unless you think the "Sidney" camp is foreign interference, but then we start moving away from canceling each other out.

So, I'll start.

1. Democrat Orchestration: This is where I am.
2. Chinese /Iranian interference not connected to #1: I don't think so. It would show a lot of sophisticated knowledge of internal American politics for the Iranians to target the few cities in the few states. I don't think they have it (although the Chinese would if they slept with enough people to get it).
3. local criminal activity. Yes, to achieve #1.
4. local political activity. This always happens, and is the intent of elections in the first place. However, it doesn't usually lead to criminal activity to ensure that the local political activity tilts one way. In my opinion, #3 was to ensure a national political objective, not seven local political objectives.

Is this comprehensive enough for you? Why don't you now clarify where you stand without ambiguity?

-PJ