Making the case that Hillary’s 2016 defeat is on the head of her own campaign

Image result for Hillary Clinton

“…That’s where Hillary lost the Electoral College while she won the popular vote by 2.5 million….”. (actually 2.9 million)

Reply: And that’s where *she* – not James Comey, not the Feds, not the sexists, not the racists, not the Russians – failed to campaign because she thought that she had those states in her pocket. Hillary made 71 campaign stops in the last 70 days of the election while Trump made 106 stops in those same last 70 days and that only goes back to the start of September. If August was factored in, it would have been a whole lot worse as Hillary decided to ‘run out the clock’ and did fund-raising instead of taking her case to the American people.

I can’t remember another time when someone so obviously at fault has had so many defend them and pointing their fingers at anything and everything else rather than where the blame so blatantly rests: with the candidate’s entitled, hubristic campaign itself. It’s Trump-like in its disdain for the truth.

“…..To all those progressives that refused to vote Hillary: fxxx you. This mess is on you too!”.

Reply: Pffffft! How about Hillary supporters – for once in their entitled lives – take some responsibility for their actions? Nathan J. Robinson in ‘Current Affairs, writing way back in March 2016, sounded the alarm and Hillary’s approval ratings are notoriously terrible. A true menace like Donald Trump was the forfeit but people still thought that Hillary Clinton was the safe choice.

People can, and do, complain about not getting enough media time; about debates being shoved onto Saturday evenings; about the media covering the wrong things; about certain candidates being given questions in advance but the voters are the voters: one can’t ask for different voters; one can’t challenge their legitimacy, they are who they are.

So, if a candidate has the reputation for being shady and untrustworthy – no matter whether it’s deserved or not, that’s immaterial – then that is a problem, no? If a candidate turns down the free media of press conferences for 278 days, when running for president, thumbing her nose at the chance of making her case to the U.S. voters, that is a problem, no? If a candidate fails to shore up her base and prefers to pick a centrist like Tim Kaine for her ticket and instead goes off to pander to fictional red state Republicans who won’t vote for Trump rather than picking Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders as her vice-president, then that’s a problem, no? Remember that JFK hated LBJ but picking him as vice-president helped the Democrats win Texas in 1960 in a razor-thin victory; remember that Reagan tussled with George H.W. Bush in the primaries, more than anyone else, but still solidified his base and picked him for vice-president.

That Hillary spent August fund-raising and ‘running out the clock’ before doing 71 campaign stops in the last 70 days, as opposed to Trump’s 106 campaign stops speaks volumes. Why mass-resignations weren’t offered by the DNC, and why they weren’t demanded from the DNC by progressive voters, is a good question that needs an answer.

“I live in Michigan. Hilary campaigned here. I personally attended a couple of rallies……”.

Reply: Obviously not enough and it’s not as if the writing wasn’t on the wall when Bernie Sanders pulled off his shocking, unexpected primary win against her; after 538 and the like said she was certain to win.

“…..Her surrogates were also here. Many, many of them……”.

Reply: Yes, thank you. That was the problem. How many surrogates did Trump have? While Hillary had the Obamas, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and others all out on the stump for her. Indeed, when Hillary appeared with Warren or the first lady or Sanders, she sometimes played ‘support’ to their ‘headline act’, the connotation being that she wasn’t the person in charge. While, with that short-fingered, know-nothing, vulgarian, it seemed like he was fighting all of his own battles.

“Oh, then it’s okay to vote for the obvious fascist.”.

Reply: Yes, that’s what I said….oh, wait, not it wasn’t but you know that already. Far better to ‘straw man’ than to engage with what someone says. Only ‘straw man’ during verbal discussions as one can get away with misrepresenting someone as there’s no record. When it’s written down, the person building the straw man comes across like they suffer from comprehension difficulties so it’s not a great idea.

When Hillary announced her run, she hit the nail on the head: “I’m going on the road in order to earn your vote.”. Yet, her campaign – and her apologists after her miserable electoral college defeat – seem to place the blame not on her but on people not dutifully turning up to give her their vote without any demands. It seems amazing that people buy into this inversion of what is supposed to happen. It’s that taking of votes for granted which cost the election.

Leaving Hillary’s manifold failures, baggage, weaknesses and plain hubris aside, it was all the more incumbent on the Democrats to earn votes in 2016 because Hillary and the Democrats were seeking a third consecutive term of a Democrat in the White House and that’s a terribly rare happening. Outside of FDR during war time and before term limits were mandated, it was 1836 when the Democrats got three terms in a row.

However, the narrative was all the demography insisted that the Democrats would win in 2016. Then, when the Republicans were going to nominate a short-fingered bellicose buffoon like Trump, well, even though Hillary had the Feds all over her, Sidney Blumenthal called it a mere “security review”  so everything must be okay and it’s plain sailing. White House, here we come………whoops-a-daisy….

“Yes yes yes all that but bottom line: A Right wing demagogue signing neo right edicts is now in power rather than the first female and Democrat President.

And alt-right Bannon’s role is also growing and growing.

Some who voted Trump must now regret that decision.”.

Reply: Every word of that is true. However, if there isn’t an “autopsy” then the same mistakes could happen again. See how Tom Perez is being pushed for head of the DNC while Keith Ellison (who is by no means perfect) is being smeared.

With the cockamamie US electoral system, there is a case to be made of: “Ho-hum if only 38,000 votes or so in the rest belt states had swung the other way then Hillary would have won with over 300 electoral votes so how bad can everything be?” but she was a million miles more qualified than Trump and she lost miserably. Already history’s being re-written about Trump’s total car crash of a campaign: he went through campaign managers like underwear yet Hillary still lost. She was supposed to be the safer than safe bet, who’d stomp him into the ground, yet she lost.

Hillary supporters, especially the ‘elite, white feminist’ class, are still grabbing at straws as to why she lost and they all serve to obscure the truth that, in this highest of high stakes election, they backed the wrong horse and Hillary’s campaign was a failure of its own making.

The 2.9 million popular vote victory, which provides Hillary apologists with so much succour, actually condemns them all. If all of the outside excuses that they proffer were so potent in denying Hillary……why did she hammer him by those 2.9 million votes, then? It was because they deployed the ‘weapon of choice’, the electoral college, so badly: refusing to campaign in certain states through fear of what it would look like to Trump, preferring to waste time and money campaigning in Arizona instead, with six days to go.

Also, the same opinion-formers who yell about ‘sexism’ have often based their careers on highlighting how sexist society is: so why are they so shocked about sexism in the election? Their argument before the election: “Hillary’s been under attack for thirty years and yet she’s still standing!”. Their miserable excuse after the election: “Hillary’s been under attack for thirty years.”. These clowns have shown no contrition. At all. They’re still probably going to be in place the next time the primaries come around to lead progressives down the wrong path again and suffer no consequences for their actions. It’s tiresome and they need to be brought to book.

Americans just tend to re-elect presidents. Undoubtedly, Trump could be a total catastrophe (I actually think he won’t last a year before he’s 86’d somehow) but if he runs again, presidents tend to get the second term: it was Perot who cost Daddy Bush in 1992, not Bill Clinton, that was an anomaly. If the Democrats phone it in the next time with another corportist, then there could be more tears before bed time and more people diving for cover than taking responsibility for their actions.

“…..a strong, stable mainstream Democrat alternative, not someone promising a surge to the left, with a radical left platform…..”.

Reply: Trouble is, the last 37 years since Reagan started his onslaught has shifted the political spectrum. Sanders was/is no radical; he was just looking to re-rig the system in favour of the proletariat instead. He wasn’t looking for actual structural change. Sanders is an FDR New Deal Democrat to the bone – a president who was so popular that they had to mandate term limits in an amendment. He’s no radical leftist. Nor, I’d argue, are Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard.

“….Trump needed to be stopped at all costs – not sure why that wasn’t obvious to the locals….”.

Reply: My sense is that people are sick of war and only saw more war with Hillary in power. I’d argue that an objective overview of Hillary’s supposed strong suit, her foreign policy, would find that she was a total disaster. Honduras; Iraq (she wasn’t only someone who voted for it but she was a big booster for it, long after people knew it was a catastrophe, doing PR events alongside ‘Mad Dog’ McCain); Libya; her Russia overtures. (Not a defence of Trump: if I was an American I would have voted for her, just on the basis of his second amendment comments. He should have been arrested, let alone allowed to fight and win an election.).

“so nothing to do with the 40 years the Republicans spent stalking, accusing and destroying her with lies and false accusations? Or the complicity of the FBI? Or the endless lies and lack of context involving Benghazi ? What a farce. Its apparent that people will believe anything.”.

Reply: She was damaged. Whether fairly or not, she was damaged goods. Whether her woefully awful approval ratings were based on propaganda and lies, it doesn’t matter. It was deemed to be ‘her turn’ but being president shouldn’t be anyone’s turn: people have got to be electable. The Hillary campaign knew that she was electoral strychnine, hence their ‘piped piper’ emails and their media shills actually elevating Trump, Carson and Zodiac killer, Ted Cruz as possible opponents because they suspected that she couldn’t beat someone who wasn’t toxic and insane. They recklessly played dice with the republic, I’d argue, and they lost. They should be ashamed of themselves.

“Why would anyone who was a Hillary supporter or undecided decide to vote for Trump because he visited their state? Because they saw the racist, bigoted, misoginists chanting of lock her up, string her up, and Trump practically having an aneurism spewing his hatred? I’m not at all convinced that that was a major factor.”.

Reply: I’d suggest that they voted for him because he came across as ‘real’ while Hillary reeked of studied rehearsal and fakeness. Ever watched Trump speak at a rally? He’s talented and very funny. Of course he was trafficking in lies, bullshit, phony-baloneyness, hate, racism, sexism. Indeed, I’ve watched a few journalists who spoke to people at Trump rallies and many accepted that he was a wretch, a scoundrel, a know-nothing, a scumbag, a vulgarian, a punk but they still wanted to try him rather than Hillary’s status quo. Hillary was electoral poison; Trump was a slower death, if he got elected.

“…..particularly disaffected Republicans who need to be turned…..”.

Reply: Forgot to mention about Republican, Bob Ney. He was asked about the idea of voting for Trump but he said he found it sickening and was seriously considering voting for Hillary. He was then asked, what if it was Bernie Sanders in the mix? He said voting for Bernie was a no-brainer. Ney said that he disagreed with him on most things but he was a great legislator (even dropping his own name from legislation and substituting someone else’s, if it meant a safer passage) and an honest man. He’d vote Bernie in a second over both Trump and Hillary.

Remember that Sanders also killed with independents. Open primaries: Bernie did very well. Closed primaries: Hillary did a lot better, sometimes crushing. It’s only my observation, not based on any data, but it seemed like many who liked Trump, liked Bernie. People too nauseated by the 40 year neoliberal onslaught wanted somewhere else to go, it seems.

“…..Now all he has to do it to live up to his promises or his chances of a second term are slim…..”.

Reply: The bad news is that he’s winged it this far on nothing but bullshit and he has no shame whatsoever so I really wouldn’t put it past him of being able to bullshit his way to another four years, if he gets to run (I strongly suspect, though, that he’ll be out within six months to a year. Too many powerful elements, CIA and the media, want him gone, gone, gone.).

“…We can’t know if another candidate for the Democrats would have fared better….”

Reply: Correct but I’d strongly suggest any person with a pulse and with a ‘D’ after their name would have won. Remember that his campaign was a total car crash and Hillary was poison. She (and her wretched husband) game him cover. Warren or Biden would have destroyed him. Sanders too, with his genuine populism hammering his phony-baloney populism. The Sanders point is an especially moot one, though.

Bernie wouldn’t have been allowed to take on Trump one-on-one because that egomaniac, Mike Bloomberg would have jumped in, as he was thinking of doing. Bloomberg once said the following outrageous statement when Elizabeth Warren was running against Scott Brown:

“…..“You can question whether he’s too conservative,” Bloomberg said. “You can question, in my mind, whether she’s God’s gift to regulation, close the banks and get rid of corporate profits, and we’d all bring socialism back, or the U.S.S.R.”….”.

He’d have taken the same tack with Bernie who, although an FDR New Dealer to the bone, would have been painted as extreme ‘left’, Trump as extreme ‘right’ and nice Mister Bloomberg as the safe middle, as he was once a Democrat, then a Republican then an independent. Bloomberg would have had the money to make that narrative stick and a pliant media who love a false equivalence.

Yet the Podesta emails show that the DNC much preferred to risk Trump winning than to ever let Bernie through. They would Molotov cocktail the party before allowing Sanders to win….which they essentially did. Bernie would have costed them their jobs; Trump wouldn’t and won’t.


Money and the Hammer’s Main Pages





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s