Hillary Clinton is trying to rewrite the history of the 2016 election, and she's hoping you won't notice. You not noticing is absolutely crucial to
her ability to salvage her legacy. Specifically, she is trying to manipulate the public's understanding of the reasons why she lost the election.
During the summer of 2016, Clinton was ahead in the polls. She was leading in both the popular vote and in the Electoral College, but as election day
approached the polls narrowed. On election day, she managed to win the popular vote by around 3 million, but she lost in the Electoral College. How
and why did this happen?
One of the first obvious cracks in Clinton's campaign came during the summer, when she disappeared from the public eye for up to a week or more at a
time on multiple occasions, with no explanation offered. This was unheard of! A politician, in the midst of campaigning for president, disappearing
from the pubic eye for a week here, a week there, with no explanation?
Rumors began to swirl. Rudy Giuliani appeared on national television, alleging that Clinton was ill (
). She denied it, but still disappeared from the public eye occasionally
for a week here and a week there, again with no explanation. Then came the 9/11 Memorial Service at ground zero. As a politician running for national
office, she couldn't afford to miss it. She had to attend. People would have known something was seriously wrong if she hadn't. She made it to the
ceremony, but half an hour into the service, she left early. As she approached her vehicle, she appeared dizzy and began to wobble. Attendants near
her reached out and held her by the arm. Then her knees buckled and she began to drop. If those near her hadn't lifted her up, she would have
collapsed completely to the ground. She was driven off and no explanation was given to the media until hours later, when it was announced that she had
merely gotten "overheated." Oh, and by the way, she had just been diagnosed with pneumonia. None of this explained her extended absences from the
public eye while she was supposed to be campaigning for president, but Hillary had developed a reputation for keeping secrets and withholding
information from the public long before that point anyway, and this was just another thing. To this day, we still don't know what her health issues
were or are.
What really outraged some Democrats were the revelations that came through Wikileaks--specifically that Hilary Clinton had cut a backroom deal with
the DNC Chair, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, to rig the nomination process in order to ensure that Clinton became the party nominee, and not Bernie
Sanders ( observer.com...
). Sanders had a plurality very enthusiastic
supporters in the Democratic Party, and they were positively outraged to find out about this deal.
Due in part to Clinton's extended absences, she did not even bother to campaign in a number of states which historically have voted Democrat in
presidential elections--so called "blue states." Take, for example, Wisconsin. That state hadn't voted for a Republican since Reagan. Heck, they
even voted for Dukakis in 1988! Then they voted for Bill Clinton (twice), Al Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008 and 2012. But when
election day 2016 came around, the majority of voters in Wisconsin went for Trump. Why? Well, partly because Hillary didn't bother to campaign there,
but mainly because enough Bernie supporters felt betrayed enough to sit on their hands on election day and not vote for Hillary!
Clinton lost the 2016 election largely because a significant percentage of minority voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania did not turn out
to the polls to vote for her. African Americans are a large voting block for the Democratic Party. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and the
Democratic Party cannot afford to lose their votes. Hillary did lose their votes. See the following article from the Washington Post, entitled, "4.4
million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016--more than a third of them black" --
This exact same scenario played out in other "blue states" such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and it's the reason why Donald Trump won the
election in 2016. It has been estimated that if Hillary had gotten a mere 80,000 extra votes spread out across 3 of these states, she would have won
the election. It was her race to win or lose, and hers alone. And she lost it.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton alone is to blame for this outcome because of her habit of lying, duplicity, and corruption. But of course
she will not admit this, so she will blame anyone else: Putin, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, the "basket of deplorables," anyone and everyone but
Trying to blame Putin or Assange for the outcome of the 2016 election is particularly hilarious to me. In the first place, both Putin and Assange deny
that the hacked emails came from Russia. Of course they may be lying, but for all I know those emails may have come from a DNC staffer who was a
disgruntled Bernie supporter! There is no way for me to know one way or the other. But what if Putin did try to influence the outcome of the 2016
election by ordering the hack of the DNC emails and releasing them to the American public via Wikileaks? In that case, all I can say is, "Fair play
to him for showing us the truth!"