After the 2016 presidential election, I could not understand how I and others had been so wrong. Prediction specialists, editorial writers, political analysts – everyone who was not a winger, kook or paid hack looked at the evidence and reasonably concluded that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was the most likely winner. Yet a lying, thieving, philandering sadist defeated the most qualified of candidates.

Why? All theories are worth exploring. Vox's David Roberts explored nearly all of them in a 6,000-plus word magnum opus entitled "Everything mattered: lessons from 2016's bizarre presidential election." But while each theory is salient in its own way, each rests on a bedrock democratic principle: that the election was a contest between equally matched rivals competing on a level playing field according to the same transparent rules. The more we learn about what happened, however, the harder it is to avoid coming to a conclusion that used to feel outrageous.

There is a reason we were all wrong. That reason is Russia.

If you had asked in December, "Did Russia win it for Donald Trump?" I would have said no. Yes, the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails. Yes, the media reported each hack as if it were significant. And yes, then-Republican nominee Trump used those reports to hammer Clinton. It was a vicious cycle she would never escape.

But early on, I thought Russia was a nuisance more than anything else. I believe generally that you can't learn from history if you can't see it clearly. Russia played a role, I thought, but let's not exaggerate it. Our time and energy is better spent figuring out what Clinton and the Democrats did wrong so we can win future elections. In a way, I found myself agreeing with Republicans who said Democrats were blaming Russia to avoid accepting reality.

That was then. I now believe the history of the 2016 election will be divided into two eras – pre-Comey and post-Comey. James Comey, of course, is the former FBI director. He was responsible for the agency's investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Before Trump fired Comey, I placed some stock in Russia's meddling but not a lot. That changed after Comey got sacked. The question, to me, was no longer whether Russia meddled but to what degree Russia attacked us. The evidence may soon be undeniable. If the Russians didn't compromise the president, they appear, for now, to have compromised those closest to him.

Indeed, news broke last week that Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, tried setting up a back channel to Russian officials to avoid detection by U.S. intelligence agencies. According to Reuters, "FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official."

Cartoons on President Trump and Russia View All 91 Images

Now, consider the scale of the Russia problem by considering a comparable attack, Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida murdered. They instilled fear, loathing and rage. And the arc of global history turned on America's reaction to their crimes. But neither they nor their homicidal heirs are a threat to our existence as a sovereign country. Scripture tells us David slayed the giant Goliath with a slingshot and one smooth stone. But in reality, Goliath stomped David and walked away with a headache.

Russia, however, is a true existential threat. It's been said that if George Wallace, Jerry Falwell and the National Rifle Association had a baby, its name would be Vladimir Putin. Authoritarians like Russia's president have a power no counterpart ever had: weapons of cyberwarfare to manipulate democracy's greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Democracy is the rule of the people. Obviously, the people can't rule literally. That would be chaos in a country our size. So the people elect representatives: members of Congress, senators and presidents. Other than voting, how do we make sure elected representatives do what we want them to? That's where public opinion comes into play, especially for the president who, unlike Senators, is answerable to everyone in the country. If the majority of the people don't like something, the president has to listen. Presidents aren't kings, after all. They govern by consent.

Public opinion and consent are democracy's triumph, but also a source of legitimate concern. We all have the right to vote, but we don't all have access to same information, nor do we have the same levels of education needed to properly understand, assess and act on that information. This is a feature of democracy, not a bug, that can be exploited if a hostile state decided to mount a goliath campaign of misinformation to shift public opinion, undermine election integrity and discredit rule by consent.

The evidence is mounting: Russia tried all the above. In this new era of cyberwarfare, they have the power to move public opinion to favor presidential candidates most amenable to Russia. Given everything we now know, the Russians succeeded spectacularly. Trump has snubbed allies, devalued human rights, fomented unrest domestically, questioned global climate change initiatives and turned a crisis of public trust into something permanent.

That vicious circle I mentioned earlier, the one Clinton could not escape – Russia hacks, the media reports those hacks and candidate Trump uses those reports to hammer Clinton – was the most obvious attempt to sway public opinion and undermine the American people's ability to choose a leader. But now there's evidence of other anti-democratic attempts by Russia, and I'm certain, as Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller move ahead with their respective investigations, we will soon see more.

A Federal Elections Commission official is worried Russia bought Facebook advertisements to influence voters in Michigan. A researcher at the University of Oxford found evidence that Michigan voters were deluged with fake news via Facebook, according to the Detroit News. And John Mattes, an investigative journalist and former on-air reporter for ABC World News, has found evidence suggesting the Russians duped supporters of then-candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. They spread fake news that encouraged them to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, to write in Sanders name, or to not vote at all, thus throwing states like Michigan to Trump.

Even if the president, his family and his aides are found over time to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, this is the future we face. And that future, replete with Russian attempts to move public opinion, is not going to favor Democratic candidates for the presidency. That's why thinking about Democratic political strategy without thinking about Russia is a waste of time. Without a forceful unified and bipartisan response, the Russians are going to continue to stab at the American republic's soft parts without leaving a trace. As Mattes said: "Russia is in our election process, and we don't know how to stop it. We didn't have a vehicle to shut it down [in November]. We were being victims en masse."

Republican John McCain was right when he told Australian broadcasters last week that Russia was more dangerous to the United States than the Islamic State group. But the Arizona senator has been in lockstep with his Republican colleagues, who remain silent on the president's inaction.