I feel a bit uncomfortable venturing this close to conspiracy-land, but

Now we all agree that even in the most open and honest contest, one doesn't announce one's exact plans to one's opponents unless one has an unbreakable dominating advantage—and even then it's stupid and may later be regretted.

But let's be clear: any time you plan with other people and don't announce your plans, that's conspiracy. It's okay if you want to limit the term to "bad" conspiracy: when the actual plans include illegal action, or when the opposition is not even informed that they are in competition. But watch for (#1) below.

Let's suppose there is open, honest, and informed debate within the GOP about the group's plans, however they are not announced to the opposition (Dems) and by extension not announced to the public.

The funny thing about open, honest, and informed debate within some social group is that it is informed and bound by the society's cultural assumptions. People are famously blind to to their culture's assumptions; they need to have them pointed out, and even then there is a barrier to acceptance.

Americans are quite prone to believing that they live in a Democracy, that Democracies work, that other countries that are not Democracies are intrinsicly flawed, that a slim majority in a Democracy would never disenfranchise and rob a minority, that a Capitalist society is a meritocratic society.

Now let's examine two beliefs of the young Dubya Bush:

"The government doesn't have to help poor people — because they are lazy."

"We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

1. Since Capitalism is meritocratic—known because some people rise out of poverty arguably on merit—people deserve the wealth or poverty they have. Also, meritocracy is good.
2. That Communism is bad, and we don't need to break it down further than that.
3. That Communism is attractive to the masses and the soft-hearted because of pie-in-the-sky promises of wealth to everyone (but ultimately it can't deliver).
4. That Socialism, Social Programs, and the general liberal agenda are creeping, foot-in-the-door intrusions of Communism into our darn nice society.
5. you can't fight creeping Communism by reasoning with the voters because they'll vote to legislate wealth-for-everyone every time. Socialism is like crack.
6. People who argue in favor of Socialism have been seduced by its crack-like charm; their arguments are convoluted and sophistic, but needn't be examined: they are all of the form "wealth is free if we vote for it".

(#1) People always talk like there are "illegal" actions that sensible people wouldn't consider. This is obvious BS. You wouldn't kill someone—except in self defense. You wouldn't cut off a stranger's arm—unless it was gangrenous. There are no black-and-white illegalities, there is only context.

If the guy in the Manchurian Candidate can't get a clear shot, and the press just calls him crazy, would it be all right for him to defeat the Manchurians by fixing the election?

How many times has it been asked, "If we could send you back to 1922, would you kill Hitler?" If you did kill Hitler, you would be a criminal. A hero to some, but still a criminal. A criminal hero. What history would say about you might not be kind: history would have no knowledge of what Hitler would have done; it would only know about the murder. You would know the truth, and perhaps it would comfort you. BTW: did you agree "I wouldn't kill someone—except in self defense"? Guess there are other reasons.

Really, when people work to fix these elections, they are only doing their duty to the country that they love.

Another big flaw of the Incompetent Left is that they are always looking—like Ms. Clinton—for the vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course there are innumerable conspiracies, but the seeming co-ordination among forces is as much the product of a shared world-view. The GOP lives in a world that the Left does not believe in, and in this world various things are true and false, and various conclusions are inevitable, and various courses of action are meritorious and necessary. You simply look at the facts on the ground and you know what you need to do.

Open, honest, and informed debate amongst Democrats is as much controlled by their assumptions, and their assumptions preclude effective action. Have a nice day.