The results of the 2016 US primary election have left many dazed, and scrambling to account for what’s happened. Who or what could possibly be blamed for this? Accusations flew, fingers were pointed, but nobody seemed to offer an answer that could speak sufficiently for the loss. After listing as many reasons as I, and many others, could think of, I grouped them all into several categories. Of these, here are my top 10 reasons, why Hillary may have lost the election in 2016.
10) Her elitist, invincible, “inevitable” attitude.
It has been said by many, that Hillary wasn’t to be “elected,” so much as “installed.” By her own words and actions, you would think she, at least, believed that to be true. She systematically alienated every segment of society, apart from her own tiny sliver of staunch supporters. She called them all either “deplorables” or “basement dwellers,” she acted like she didn’t need progressive votes, she didn’t have a press conference for nearly a year, she faked public appearances (more than one), and most importantly, she abandoned the working class in favor of billionaire donors, and as a result, she lost those rust belt votes. The DNC, and Hillary’s cronies in the media didn’t “suggest” her, they didn’t “endorse” her, they FORCED her down the throats of the American public, and voters not only resent that, they’re not likely to soon forget it.
9) She undermined the Democratic process during the primaries.
The purpose of a primary is to isolate the strongest candidates from each faction and back them. Instead, the DNC isolated the strongest candidate, the one who polled consistently in the double digits against Trump, and systematically thwarted his campaign from the word “go,” in favor of the establishment candidate who, though well-connected (not to mention well-funded), also happened to set records for unfavorability. As a result, Sanders supporters’ willingness to fall on their swords and vote for Hillary was diminished, but that’s not really even the point. The point is that no amount of focus on “optics” can make an unpopular candidate win when so many people’s eyes are opening wider all the time. In spite of her being played as an outsider, Hillary Clinton was “the” establishment candidate, in an election cycle where voters heavily favored anti-establishment candidates. ANY anti-establishment candidate.
8) She had horrible trust issues.
Hillary already had issues with terms like “flip-flopper” being associated with her, after changing her stance on so many fundamental issues over the course of her career, but her adamant refusal to release her paid speech transcripts to big banks was probably the biggest snag that pulled at the fabric of her campaign. That is until WikiLeaks released all of them, at which time the entire polyester pantsuit was ripped open for all to see. “Hi, I’m Hillary Clinton, and I have two faces: one I show to the public when I want votes, and one that I only show to a tiny handful of rich people when I want their money! I’m mostly out of touch with the middle class, so you can imagine what kind of bond I must share with the truly impoverished! But you can trust me to protect the big banks from you, so please vote for me!”
7) She wanted war with Russia.
This is possibly the least talked about, but possibly the main reason why many people did not vote for Hillary Clinton. One of her main campaign promises was a no-fly zone over Syria, which if enacted, would have been a formal declaration of war against Russia, a nuclear-armed superpower. I’ll just leave that right there. Her hawkishness is well known, but this goes beyond… She either knew it would mean war with Russia when she endorsed the idea, or she should have.
6) She was a threat to national security.
As if #7 weren’t enough… This is about more than just her reckless handling of classified information, or her emails, or her seeming inability to operate within the rules governing her use of either of them. When you act, and make judgments as Secretary of State that are based on the whims of your donors, and not on the responsibilities and constraints of diplomacy, you leave the rest of us open to the inevitable repercussions of your actions. When those donors are foreign countries like Israel or governments that you know were funding ISIL, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, suddenly you have a whole host of countries potentially mad at the US, including the US itself. You also have foreign governments expecting something in return for their investment. Within the Clinton Foundation, that payback usually took the form of weapons deals. More weapons in questionable hands… Did anyone feel any safer? Did anyone think it would be any different when she was president? Apparently, a lot of people didn’t.
5) Her presidency would entail perpetual scandal.
WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, anonymous, and other whistleblowers are just the newest installment of something that’s been following the Clintons ever since they first appeared on the political scene in the late 80s… Scandal. TV networks and news agencies love Clinton scandals, the American people…not so much. More accurately perhaps, the American people have grown weary of the nearly constant bombardment of news of the latest Clinton controversy, or any one of the many re-hashes of older stories that were never really vetted or closed in most people’s minds. …And still, they keep coming. Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, her email server, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Trollgate, Exit-pollgate, they go on and on, they leave a decidedly bitter taste in the mouth, and they would be the overlying theme for the next 4-8 years under Hillary Clinton. Each one, a further reminder of the fact that, under the Oligarchy, rulers are held to a different set of laws than the rest of us.
4) She brought nothing new to the table.
As our first female president, Hillary Clinton had a golden opportunity to bring something else, something new to the table. Instead, she chose to beat men at their own crooked games, by proving once and for all, that a woman can be every bit as dastardly, underhanded and crass as any man in the same position. In all honesty, when women do things differently from men, they are often chastised. Men don’t necessarily want women to fail, but when they succeed, they want it to be on men’s own terms. REAL victories don’t happen like that. Men don’t like being shown another way, a way that might be better because then THEY would be the ones potentially judged against it. In the meantime, bringing some compassion to the situation does not denote fear, but bravery. Thinking about legislation in human terms, not just financial ones, doesn’t denote weakness, but strength. That’s the kind of leader we need, without regard to their gender. Clinton became known as the candidate who would “maintain the status quo.” But what people failed to realize, is that this “status quo” is not a flat line, it is a state of marked decline. Income inequality was bad 2 years ago. It’s even worse now and shows little signs of slowing.
3) Bill and Chelsea Clinton
A lot of people would probably say that Hillary Clinton’s campaign problems were caused by Hillary Clinton, herself. As a person who has just spent a long time collecting reasons for her demise and organizing them, I can say that that is mostly true. But in all fairness, not all of them were. There were other Clinton’s to blame, also. First off, Bill had a steel-reinforced reputation as a lech, a womanizer, and entitled horndog. It had gone beyond speculation, into that realm of collective knowledge that only things like a Presidential impeachment, and talks on primetime television about “the President’s semen” can bring us into. So what does Hillary do on the campaign trail, to try and reel in new voters? She brings out the sperminator. He also may have campaigned at polling places, which is illegal, doing her campaign NO favors. At the end of the day, a lot of voters simply did not want “that man” back in the WH, even as a first spouse. Holding Hillary responsible for her husband’s crimes isn’t fair, but holding her accountable for how she treated her husband’s victims sure is. …And then we have Chelsea Clinton. At a time when over half of the US had legal medical marijuana, 7 states had legal recreational marijuana, and legislation was becoming more and more pot-friendly all the time, Chelsea hit the campaign trail for Hillary, to inform voters that her mom would clamp down on marijuana use if elected. As if that weren’t enough, she also said that pot “was killing people.” So much for millennial outreach… I was immediately reminded of 2008, when McCain inexplicably thought it would be a good idea to go on the Ellen Degeneres show, to tell her 6 million viewers how against gay marriage he was. Yeah. He didn’t win.
2) Even election fraud has its limits.
After screaming for months after the primary about how election fraud is a Communist plot designed to erode faith in US elections, Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, showcasing some serious doubts about the validity of the results for people who had put a lot of faith in MSM polling, and HRC herself. But due to her prior stance on the issue, Hillary could say nothing. Turns out, there likely WAS election fraud. But even though Hillary lost, there is evidence which shows that she probably should have lost to an even greater degree than she did. Apparently “the red shift” (later to become known as “the Clinton shift”), could only be shifted so far.
1) Hillary Clinton is not Bernie Sanders.
There is a reason why Bernie Sanders’ campaign took flight, and really became successful in spite of the MSM blackout, and it’s not just Bernie’s message. It was also due to the millions of people that his message resonated with, and their tireless, unending efforts to get him elected. Yes, HRC supporters tried, but you just didn’t see the level of enthusiasm or drive that was there in Bernie’s camp. They marched, they organized, they phone banked, they collected signatures, canvassed, wrote their legislators, delegates, and electors. They had Bernie’s unflinching, unchanging message, and all Hillary supporters seemed to have was fear of Trump and a candidate who was of the female gender. That wasn’t enough, as it turned out. However, an elderly Jew with bad posture had gotten 60,000 people at his rallies, due almost exclusively to grassroots networks of dedicated phone bankers, canvassers, delegates, and volunteers donating not only their time but their money to help spread Bernie’s message. HRC supporters thought their win was inevitable, didn’t feel the need to do very much marching around, felt entitled to the win, and when it didn’t happen, were the first to call everyone else around them the entitled ones. In their defense, they were lied to—and lulled into a false sense of security by the DNC, and the MSM.
In light of this list, it seems to me the question is not “How did she lose?” but rather “How the hell could she have won?” I didn’t have to resort to red-baiting, blaming Russia, third party voters, or Macedonian clickbait sites for that question to arise, either. When you eliminate the Clintons from the list of “those who can be blamed,” that’s all that’s left, really.