Why did Hillary Clinton lose in 2016?

I thought Hillary won the popular vote, Trump just won that little old Electoral College that we should now get rid of.
Isn't that the democrat talking point?

originally posted by: kasalt
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 ( www.politico.com... ). 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" -- www.washingtonpost.com...

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 herself.

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!"

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: kasalt

Why did Hillary Clinton lose in 2016?

Because she wanted to lose. Hillary knows how to campaign. She knows how to win an election. This wasn't arrogance or apathy. This was the plan.

Hillary's health may have played a big part in her decision, but at same point she stopped even really trying. She was just going through the motions. And it showed miserably.

And perhaps -- donning bestest tinfoil hat -- she made a deal with a good friend to allow him to win the election, to guarantee immunity from past deeds, or a pardon if charged and convicted with crimes, and to set up the political playing field for her daughter... and, of course, her daughter's good friend, who just happens to also be the daughter of the friend she allowed to win...

While you make a valid point here about Trump winning, I still will vote for him in November 2020. Trump is the most Democratic Republican since Reagan's 1 st term.

It is ironic that during the theatrical impeachment farce among many others, that the Clinton era Democrats of the 90s all were in lockstep with Trump policies. It seems ludicrous that the classic Dems began embracing and defending the extreme leftists. Yet, makes sense if they want to ensure Trump gets re-elected again.

The next 4 years will be interesting to watch. Trump cannot be re-elected come 2024. How will this reality show play out in American Politics? What twists in the storyline await the populace? Intuitively, come mid 2021, I believe that the plot thickens and will be more alert.

With this thinking, why vote for Trump? Obviously, no real alternatives are being proffered. He is setting the stage for the return to classic democracy and Republicans are being divided and drawn into the center stage. For now, this was needed.

Eh...just my 2 cents and to say Thank you for continuing to question. It helps me keep an open unbiased mind and not necessarily fall into the trap...Trump good, Dems bad!

because she took out sethh richh. thats why she lost.

thank god for the [at the moment] free internet.

i think enough people heard about all the arrkensides, and people knew her and her hubby were evil p0s's.

a reply to: CynConcepts

While you make a valid point here about Trump winning, I still will vote for him in November 2020. Trump is the most Democratic Republican since Reagan's 1 st term.

I'll be voting for Trump also. The game changer for me was the entire impeachment debacle. However, Trump has done some good. In fact, he's done more good than not. So my vote will only be a partial protest vote.

It is ironic that during the theatrical impeachment farce among many others, that the Clinton era Democrats of the 90s all were in lockstep with Trump policies. It seems ludicrous that the classic Dems began embracing and defending the extreme leftists. Yet, makes sense if they want to ensure Trump gets re-elected again.

I know a few Dems whose heads were spinning by the end of Obama's terms, and are completely disgusted with current politics. They may not like Trump, but not all hate Trump either. And they sure don't understand how the values they've held (and voted by) for so long are suddenly being trashed by the party. Even worse, that the party is trashing them!

I don't think it's surprising that so many previous Dems are wondering what the hell happened to their party.

And I can't believe anyone doesn't see how this is actually helping Trump. Just shaking my head...

People don't like being ignored.

The Clinton campaign ignored, in essence, the entire middle 1/2 of the nation. That "fly over" country we hear so much about...

That played a huge roll in the upset.

Disappearing from public view so often did not help, that's plain enough. But mostly the presumed idea, on the part of the ignored, that she didn't care about the middle 1/2 of the nation played the major roll, IMNSHO.

Why did Hillary Clinton lose in 2016?

She didn't cheat hard enough.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I thought Hillary won the popular vote, Trump just won that little old Electoral College that we should now get rid of.
Isn't that the democrat talking point?

originally posted by: kasalt
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 ( www.politico.com... ). 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" -- www.washingtonpost.com...

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 herself.

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!"

Well Trump said we should get rid of the Electoral College during the 2016 campaign. He changed his tune when it gave him the presidency. Isn't that the talking point?

a reply to: kasalt

Shows voters from the west coast and New York don't like Trump

"Why did Hillary Clinton lose in 2016?"

Too many naps.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I thought Hillary won the popular vote, Trump just won that little old Electoral College that we should now get rid of.
Isn't that the democrat talking point?

originally posted by: kasalt
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 ( www.politico.com... ). 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" -- www.washingtonpost.com...

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 herself.

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!"

Keep in mind that the same Electoral College that put Trump in office also elected Bill Clinton and Barack Obama twice. Al Gore won in 2000 but thanks to the hanging chads in Florida, the presidency was given to Bush by the courts. And the Democrats would have won in 2016 if Hillary hadn't been Hillary.

a reply to: kasalt


Because She has Been , and Always Will be , a LOOSER .........

Trump got roughly the same number of votes as Mitt Romney did in 2012, but Hillary got nearly 5 million fewer votes overall than Obama (source: NPR -- www.npr.org... ). This means that millions of Democrats refused to vote for Hillary. So the break in the political system was on the Dem's side. The challenge for Hillary supporters is to explain how she lost in blue states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. When you can answer that question, then you'll know the real reason why Clinton lost.

Why did she Lose? Did we forget about the counter-coup?

Hillary lost because Republicans stole the election. I am no Hillary fan but reality is the election was stolen through a variety of means including voter suppression and voter purges. Exit polls in key states show as much as a 6 point difference between official results.
www.researchgate.net...
a reply to: monkcaw

a reply to: kasalt Would someone please admit it was a very close election? Anything or everything was why it went like it did.

What ever your pet theory is, you are correct. 'All of 'em, Katy!'

She has intestinal distress and was horrible to be around. Most had to use a full face respirator when in her presence. The odor was described as a cross between freshly ground parmesan cheese and a slaughterhouse. The smell was reported to attach itself to inanimate objects in the immediate area and possess small electronic devices with bluetooth activated. It was powerful enough to keep many democratic voters away from the ballot box.

originally posted by: TheBoomersRBusted
a reply to: kasalt Would someone please admit it was a very close election? Anything or everything was why it went like it did.

What ever your pet theory is, you are correct. 'All of 'em, Katy!'

Of course it was close. It has been estimated that if Hillary had gotten a mere 80,000 extra votes spread out across Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, she would have won not just the popular vote but the Electoral College vote and the whole election.

It’s not gonna be close this year though

a reply to: shooterbrody

How do you know?
Did you work on her campaign?

a reply to: VforVendettea
it was WIDELY reported at the time
sadly it has not been remedied