The Clinton Factor: New York Times Study Suggests That It Was Not Voter Turnout That Determined Election

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziHillary Clinton has been speaking publicly about her electoral defeat and offering a long list of reasons for the loss except one: Hillary Clinton herself.  A new study by the New York Times however concludes that there was not a failure of Democratic turnout, as often suggested by Clinton supporters spinning the election.  Rather, voters simply rejected Clinton herself.  While Clinton has offered the perfunctory statement that she takes responsibility for the loss, she has been blaming everyone else except herself from the Russians to the FBI Director to self-hating women.  Yesterday, she sat through an interview with Christaine Amanpour at the Women for Women event in New York and proclaimed that, if it weren’t for FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, and “[i]f the election had been on October 27, I would be your president.” Update: President Donald Trump has fired back at Clinton saying that he simply ran a great campaign.  That assertion is equally debatable since Trump remained equally unpopular with most voters who simply felt that they had no choice (again) offered by the two parties.  As discussed below, I think that the election turned on the manifest demand of the voters for someone outside of the establishment.

We are still waiting for a serious post-election interview of Clinton.  Amanpour did not ask about any of the scandals that plagued Clinton or the fact that she was one of the least popular politicians in the country or that she magnified these problems by refusing to turn over her Wall Street speeches.  She also did not ask why Clinton remained so close in the polls against someone so polarizing as Trump.  Finally, when Clinton refers to her controversies as causing the loss, she is never asked about the fact that Trump faced endless such controversies at the same time but still prevailed against her.  Trump faced unrelentingly bad press and, in comparison, Clinton had overwhelmingly positive (and at times openly supportive) coverage.  Yet Trump prevailed against her.  As David Axelrod said this week, “it took a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.” We are still waiting for that interview.
Clinton insisted that
“I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.  The evidence for that intervening event is, I think, compelling, persuasive, and so we overcame a lot in the campaign.”
She also added again that she lost in part because she is a women and said “Yes, I do think [misogyny] played a role. I think other things did as well. Every day that goes by, we find out more about the unprecedented inference, including from a foreign power whose leader is not a member of my fan club.”  There is a remarkable degree of contempt for female voters in this claim that misogyny had to be in play for any woman to vote against Clinton.  It is a bizarre notion that women have to vote for a woman or they are self-hating women.  It sounds a bit too much like “they couldn’t hate me so they must hate themselves.”
A recent poll showed that, despite Trump being the least popular modern president at this point in his Administration, he would still beat Clinton.  Clinton still remains radioactive with many voters. Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorability), Clinton struggled even to maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.  I believe that voters are willing to elect a woman and I do not believe that the last election was decided by self-hating women. There was ample reason to vote against Clinton who was not just the ultimate establishment figure but was dragging a long chain of controversies (as well as polls showing that voters heavily viewed her as dishonest).
The New York Times study found that Trump won by “persuasion” and not turn out. In other words, they rejected Clinton as a candidate as they did when she ran against Obama.  It came down to the candidates: “The voter file data makes it impossible to avoid this conclusion. It’s not just that the electorate looks far too Democratic. In many cases, turnout cannot explain Mrs. Clinton’s losses.”
In these speeches, Clinton is rarely asked about her refusal to turn over her Wall Street speeches or her massive speaking fees from corporate and banking interests or support for virtually every war that came around.  Clinton remained so unpopular that she faced a serious challenge from an elderly Socialist. She was widely viewed as inauthentic and evasive.  In the general election against one of the most unpopular figures in U.S. political history, she was not trusted by many voters, including many women.  The new spin is that these women are just self-haters lacking self-esteem rather than the obvious problems with the candidate virtually anointed by the establishment as the Democratic nominee.
Democratic insiders recognized the danger in the loss to Trump immediately.  After many people ridiculed the selection of Clinton as perhaps the worst possible candidate for this election cycle, they engineered an election tailor-made for Trump.  Many concluded that Clinton was the most likely candidate to lose to Trump, including some saying that she was the only major candidate who would lose that fight for voters.  With the rising unpopularity of Trump, that creates both an opportunity and a liability for Democrats.  Some voters may not just blame Trump but blame the Democratic establishment for bringing him to power with their blind support for Clinton as the nominee.
What was particularly notable in the most recent interview was Clinton’s parting words on her plans for the future: “I’m now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance.”  For someone who is widely viewed as the ultimate establishment candidate, it may take a great deal more to persuade people that she is back to being an activist, let alone “part of the resistance.” Indeed, the resistance fighters might want a showing of “bona fides” like the release of those Wall Street speeches to confirm that Clinton was not saying one thing to the public and an entirely different thing to Wall Street influence seekers.
The New York Times study counters the concerted effort of Democratic insiders to create a new narrative for the election where Clinton and Democratic leaders are not the cause for the loss.  It was the failure of voters to turn out or Comey or Putin.  They continue to point to the emails even though the content was not altered.  In essence, they are complaining about the public reading the conflicting comments made by Democratic aides and leaders, including the DNC working behind the scenes for Clinton against Sanders.  That point was made in response to Clinton by Julian Assange this week.   There is no acknowledgment that the emails (which clearly misappropriated) revealed troubling levels of duplicity and dishonesty.  They magnified the huge problem that Clinton already had with polls showing that voters viewed her as dishonest.
Again the plain fact is that, at a time when voters showed that they were fed up with the Washington establishment, the Democratic leadership ignored every poll to push through Clinton.  They still have not come to grips with that decision or the control of the party by the Clintons.  The current spin effort by Clinton and her allies in both the media and politics represents a serious obstacle to reforming the party and presenting a stronger challenge in two and four years.
What do you think?

236 thoughts on “The Clinton Factor: New York Times Study Suggests That It Was Not Voter Turnout That Determined Election”

  1. Whoa–Clinton’s e-mails are intelligence porn! Comey said Wikileaks publishes “intelligence porn”. I love this stuff! Who can make it up????

    Thank you autumn and right back at you and bb!

    1. Jill, I know you have serious issues with Sander’s proclivity towards the establishment when it comes to defense (and Israel to a degree), not to mention all his insider baseball or compromises, but this is not so much an endorsement of Sanders (I would have voted for him but with reservations), as it is a description of the DNC (as opposed to the functionally identical RNC) wing of the establishment..

  2. People always forget. The job of tht DNC is not so much to elect Democrats as it is to make sure no non establishment candidate, such as Sanders, will EVER get anywhere near the nomination, never mind actually run for president of the United States.

    Claims that the DNC was tone deaf, about just how poor Hillary’s chances actually were, entirely miss the point. They didn’t care that much. Sure they preferred Hillary to Trump but they vastly preferred Trump, who is as neoliberal as Hillary, any day over someone like Sanders who would really challenge the status quo and even more importantly who would have had a viable social movement behind him.

    The Russia-gate stuff is not so much the DNC trying to come up with an excuse for Hillary as it is part of an overall effort of the Establishment working through the DNC in this case to blackmail Trump into making the content (not the patina or “tweets”) of his presidency almost identical to that which Hillary would have observed.

    So, No wall, pipelines R us, sophisticated anti-missile system in S. Korea against China (using N. Korea as a distraction), keep a tight leash on Trump’s relations with Russia, continue wars destabilization and regime change in Middle East, continue sanctions on Russia and expand lucrative military bases globally to name a few of the more obvious indicators that Trump now knows which side of the bread has butter.

    1. What?! No “Deep State” reference!? What kinda conspiracy fan are you?!

  3. True fact: I was on may way to winning the giant Powerball jackpot if some idiot had not picked the wrong numbers. so yes Hillary , I know how you feel

  4. The most chilling thing about her speech was her statement that she is now part of the resistance. So what is she “resisting”? She’s pro corporate, pro selected dictatorships, she promoted fracking around the world. She engage in election rigging. She engaged in pay to play. She has engaged in illegal activities while working for the govt. to include war crimes She’s very pro regime change and she hoped to obliterate Iran with nukes. For these stances alone, she really deserves a place in the Trump administration! Finally, she remains wholly committed to propaganda–it’s still Russian turtles all the way down.

    Well, now that I think of it, she’s perfect for the current resistance! She makes an excellent leader for these morons. Carry on Hillary. I’m sure they love you.

    1. Hillary may claim the resistance, but the Resistance doesn’t care about her. Party-style Dems overlook NeoLiberal behavior/policies at their peril. When I voted, I thought about Honduras and the Corp-Coup she engendered there welcoming back death squads.

      Hillary is history. Why are we even noticing her? If we can’t get past the team-sport version of politics, we’ll be history too.

      1. Claudia,

        When I go to the resistance twitter feed it has a lot to do with Clinton. There’s a heart warming picture of her with girl scouts-so sweet. There, you read all Dim chatter, all the time. This isn’t a resistance to anything. It’s free advertisement and propaganda for Clinton and the Dims. I also live in a liberal village of the Dims. They all think they are part of the resistance. They are completely uninformed about the actions of their own party’s leadership and they no more support the Constitution than the Berkeley students and many of the people on the other right wing of the political spectrum.

        More power to you for supporting a resistance but I am afraid you are a minority in that group.

    2. her “resistance” will be to continue to undermine the opponent who defeated her. Barry is part of the same resistance.

  5. So, we are told, Hillary went into the woods to commune with nature and to lick her wounds after her failed bid for the Presidency. A real Dali Lama, that one. No doubt, she went in there with her trusted and constant “companion” Huma to be at one with nature. The only problem is that Hillary, alone, emerged from the woods, wearing soiled and bloody clothing, a hockey mask and carrying a shovel. No Huma in sight. Guess another mysterious accident can be chalked up to the Clinton crime syndicate, where those who have the goods on the family suffer mysterious endings.

    1. Has Huma been killed? That would be news to me. Are you making a criminal accusation? I suppose every time Hillary farts, you would claim it was a poison gas attack.

      1. Have you seen Huma, the Muslim Brotherhood Sweetheart, lately, on the news? Photographed, making the rounds? Just sayin’

        1. Why should Huma be making any rounds? She is a private citizen now. Besides, getting unhitched from the Weenie is probably time-consuming enough.

      2. Have you seen Huma, the Muslim Brotherhood Sweetheart, lately, on the news? Photographed, making the rounds? Just sayin’.

          1. The fact that she, purportedly, has a book deal doesn’t answer whether she has been seen.

      3. Huma was sending Hillary’s classified documents to her pervert husband’s laptop. Weiner didn’t have a security clearance to handle any of the documents AND he is being investigated for sexting with underage girls. Huma failed to turn over that laptop to the FBI during the initial investigation. We’re looking at multiple felonies. What is Comey’s excuse for failing to prosecute? Same thing as to why he didn’t indict Hillary the first time: couldn’t prove criminal intent. That is not the law and if this stands, then no other federal employee or military person should ever be indicted or go to prison for mishandling classified materials because: no criminal intent. Even Gen. Petraeus took a hit for mishandling classified docs. Did they prove criminal intent? Comey is clearly compromised with his arbitrary and selective prosecution standard.

        1. You just need to prove negligence and carelessness. Where does it say indictment requires proving ‘criminal intent.’?

          1. Trump just might beat the rap in the same way. He could say he had no knowledge of what Putin was trying to do.

            1. Exactly. So Comey just laid it out: Ignorance of the law IS an excuse.

              Hillary didn’t mean to do anything wrong. There was no intent to do anything wrong….you know like setting up a private illegal server, destroying emails under subpoena, smashing cell phones with hammers, wiping hard drives with Bleach Bit, losing laptops in the mail…. Nope, no way we could prove criminal intent. Huma? She didn’t actually know she was doing anything in violation of the law. Therefore? Case closed. Unbelievable.

            1. Thoughts about mens rea…..

              “The military prosecutions under Section 793(f) illustrate that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for this offense would not be to single her out. Perhaps more significantly, the offenses for which comparatively low level military personnel have been prosecuted pale in seriousness compared to the offense of the former Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in vio”lation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments.

              By contrast, as Judge Mukasey outlined, the military cases are “reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility.”

              If we are truly worried about a double standard, how can it be that the prosecution of these military officials is appropriate but the former secretary of state has immunity?”

              1. “Comey rationalized that the statute could not be applied to Clinton because Congress’s criminalization of mere “negligence” was constitutionally suspect; therefore, the theory went, the FBI could not greenlight prosecution absent proof of willful misconduct, a higher mens rea standard. This is a specious argument. It is, to begin with, a red herring: an attempt — which has been wildly successful, by the way — to minimize Clinton’s misconduct in the public mind, as if it were indisputably nothing worse than unintentional recklessness. In point of fact, there is substantial evidence that Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was willful. A secretary of state’s stock-in-trade is classified information. By setting up an unauthorized, non-secure e-mail system, she rendered it inevitable that classified information would be disseminated through and stored on that system. This brute fact cannot be dismissed, as the FBI dismissed it, by pretending that mishandling classified information was not the purpose of the homebrew server system. It was an easily predictable effect — and, again, people are deemed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions.”

                Read more at:

              2. More on Comey’s decision not to even prosecute Huma Abedin who forwarded documents from Secy of State Hillary Clinton’s computer to her sexting perv husband’s laptop for him to print out AND he had no proper clearance at the time….

                “The standard is gross negligence.”

                “As I’ve written before, I served in the military, handled classified information, and helped investigate possible violations of laws and regulations governing classified documents. Here’s what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt — if a soldier had sent classified documents to his wife “to print out” his best legal outcome would be a one-way ticket to a dishonorable discharge. His worst outcome would be jail. Let’s not forget, Hillary and her entire team (including Abedin) were bound by law to protect both marked and unmarked classified information.

                Moreover, Hillary and her entire team were hardly neophytes. They’d been exposed to classified information for years. They knew exactly the types and categories of information that were typically classified, and they knew how they should handle that information. But Abedin forwarded emails for printing anyway. But Hillary stored messages on her homebrew server anyway. No wonder Hillary lied so loudly and frequently about her emails. The truth was too devastating (and incriminating) to tell.”


            2. More thoughts about mens rea….

              “18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
              18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

              A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

              The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation.

              Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.”

              U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

              If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location.

              The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

              18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

              To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians.

              The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

              18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

              Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use….

              and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so.

              Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

              18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

              If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information.

              The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

              Excerpts from article:

        2. Trump and his team are up to bat. No one likes Comey and he does not care.

        3. This is far too tame. Need a clip of Gowey, with his laser sharp questioning, to rip this this compromised doofus a new one. Now, that’s entertainment. This is far too easy and deferential. Gowey, as a former prosecutor, knows how to slice and dice idiots like this. Like a cat, toying with a mouse, before it devours it.

    2. So, just what was Hillary SUPPOSED to do after the election? Knit sweaters?

      1. Break large rocks into smaller ones. Or maybe craft license plates.

  6. “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” (Federalist 10)

    Never doubt the wisdom of the founding fathers.

  7. Hillary is so f’ng psychotic and delusional that she actually thought that stressing the point of potentially becoming America’s first female President was going to sway voters to cast their vote for her. That the fact that she was going to break that glass ceiling would, somehow, blind us to the lying, cheating, criminal, duplicitous and throughly evil being that is Hillary Clinton. Yes, Hillary, your vagina endears all of us to you. Every interview that she does only further convinces the American people that it, in fact, dodged a bullet by escaping a country ruled by this sociopathic hag.

  8. I poured over the Clinton against Obama primary election results county-bh-county –versus — the same county-by-county primary election results of Sanders against Clinton, at the time.
    Side note: what stands out especially is 1) The high negatives both Trump and Clinton had 2) Americans polled by a majority said “The country is going in a wrong direction”
    Texas and Oklahoma democtrats disproportionally favored Sanders which defied regular logic, that showed me the press was deceptive in its favorism of Hillary and they would lose the South to Trump by crossover Democrats and Independents.
    Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin : nobody trusted Hillary on the trade deals like Trans-Pacific partnership in these battleground surprise upset states. The Democrat establishment by their very DNA favors globalism over their own unions. Obama never had those high negatives. One and two time Obama voters picked Trump.

  9. The interview itself, w/ a sycophant reporter throwing batting practice pitches, explains why she lost. People saw it was “rigged” and still is.

  10. Perhaps people just couldn’t stand her or her LIES??? WHY can’t they take the truth and quit trying to blame everyone around them for this flawed candidate (I’m being kind). People do NOT trust the Clintons any more. End of story.

    1. Nor should they have ever. The short length of people’s memories astounds me at times. She would have been far, far worse for the country in the long term, without a doubt.

        1. Bernie is a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, and calling him “elderly” is meant to diminish him. Notice that JT doesn’t call HRC “elderly”.

          The fear was that hrc would continue funding ISSIS factions, illegal invasions, coups d’etat, and other favors for Israel, then blame the GOP for not doing anything to improve the lives of ALL Americans.

          Trump won because voters believed that HE would.

        2. She would pass TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal, and she would be accelerating into the Syrian war mess in her first hundred days.

        3. TPP, continuing aggression with Russia, accelerating the tensions in Syria, more pay for play in the Clinton Foundation……..

          1. Russia is disappointed with Trump, Trump is bombing Syria and Goldman is literally running the economy.and TRUMP INC is raking in the dough. TPP was not going to pass. What is the difference?

    2. Why can’t you stand her, exactly? Which lies, exactly? If she came across like June Cleaver, would that have rendered her more electable?

      1. So the millions of Obama voters who voted for Trump this time around was because of Comey/Russia? The funniest part is that Hillary had so much baggage, was so inauthentic, and so lacking in any message other than ‘I’m the most qualified ever and first woman and it’s MY turn’ –that she helped a billionaire who lives in his gilded golden Trump Tower penthouse seem more relatable and electable to average blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt than her. Trump’s message was all about the working people. Hillary’s message was all about HER. That’s the difference.

          1. If the Republicans lose control of the House to the Democrats in 2018……here comes Impeachment…..Republicans (and Trump) better get their acts together.

        1. The message may have been about the working people but the reality is about what is good for Goldman Sachs and the Trump family. Saw Jared is invested with Soros. lol

        2. Seeing a presidential candidate literally collaping on the anniversary of 9/11 and being shoveled into the back of her Scooby getaway van with her feet dragging behind her and leaving one of her shoes behind on the street didn’t exactly help her gain voter confidence either. Pneumonia was the excuse. Voters didn’t buy it. Hillary and her campaign were a total disaster from start to finish.

          1. I take it you have never been sick enough to faint, on any occasion.

            1. Ford failed of re-election in part because of his stumble on exiting an airplane and because he pardoned Nixon (never mind that /whoever/ got appointed to succeed Nixon was going to pardon him), and Quayle because he’d learned to spell “potato” differently when he was a child.

              HRC has been playing fast and loose with the truth since her husband ran for POTUS the first time, and has clearly wanted to exercise political authority since her time as First Lady, despite not having been elected as co-President. She abandoned Arkansas in favor of New York to benefit her own political career, and many of her decisions following that have been viewed as Hillary taking care of Hillary first, her family second, the DNC third, and special interest groups fourth. If she ever gave a damn about any of the “deplorables” in the nation, she’s never indicated it, which for many demonstrates that she’d never represent the nation as a whole as POTUS.

              Her history of blaming others for her own actions is as notable as her defense of Bill’s questionable activities, not to mention the questionable legality of some of her own activities. Overall, she has cast doubt on her trustworthiness since that first Presidential election. The fact that her supporters have been attempting to make each and every one of those “go away” appears to be something that she encouraged, or at least stood mute on.

              And still her supporters attempt to make her gaffes “go away” with conspiracy theories, and get annoyed that their efforts fail. “Poor, poor Hillary”, they moan, as if her highly favorable coverage in the “unbiased” media was much more unfair than the face of a major news network blatantly and in partisan fashion trying to cause the re-election of Bush to fail with a “fake but accurate” story.

              The possibility that a large number of people have gotten sick and tired of being told to follow the orders of the DNC and confirm her coronation, and after being treated as unimportant nuisances for 8 long years, simply isn’t credible to her camp.

              But sure, they can keep telling themselves that it’s someone, /anyone/ other than Herself and themselves that is to blame for Trump’s election.

              In original AD&D parlance, faced with the choice of a Chaotic Evil president, or another four years of Lawful Evil after 8 or 16 years of that, they decided that at least with CE, something good might come of the chaos, because with chaos, you can get almost any result, even good, even if the Prez is himself evil.

              For this and a stream of reasons that keep coming in from a Left that is not only always moving towards the extreme (while calling themselves more and more “moderate” (Being pro-censorship is merely the current shift to the extreme)) describing how anyone to the Right of themselves is evil and undeserving of anything and everything, the voters were supposed to vote for Hillary?

              Oh, that’s right, since she never did /anything/ to cause distrust, failing to vote for her is proof that they are horrible, horrible people.

              Sure, it was Putin conspiring with Trump and a video that caused the failure of her campaign. Only possible explanation. Uh-huh. Doing the same thing all over again in 2020 is going to work, this time. Because we good, they evil. *SMFH*

          2. I think this video clinched it. In the end I believe this is why she lost. One cannot vote for a sick woman who collapses at a public event on a nice day and must be tossed into a van like a sack of potatoes, losing a shoe in the process.

            1. I take it you have never been sick enough to faint, on any occasion…(I repeat)

        1. I’m beginning to suspect that “being authentic” means blurting out whatever crosses one’s mind at a given instant, without stopping to consider any implications or complications or nuances. That is, talk first and think later (if at all).

  11. The election was very close. Yet many here seem to think that Comey or the Russians or other influences had NOTHING to do with the election results, but only some hard-to-define character flaw, and only that, turned the election.

  12. In Turley’s text:
    …”she exasperated these problems…”

    NO, she EXACERBATED the problems. Good grief, Jonathan, check your English and your spelling !

  13. “I was on the way to winning….” until I lost.

    “I take full responsibility….” but…it was Comey/Russia…. (aka: FBI criminal investigation into illegal conspiracy to hide emails from the public, destroy them, use Bleach Bit to wipe the hard drives, smash cell phones to bits with hammers, and then discover the laptop used by perv Anthony Weiner that contained classified docs and lewd photos that Huma Abedin never turned over to FBI ….THAT interference)

    CNN: “Were you a victim of misogyny?” HRC: ‘Yes, yes I was. I take full responsibility for BEING a VICTIM.’

    The CNN interviewer is another Clinton-friendly journalist, so of course there were no hard-hitting questions. I read somewhere that the interview was like ‘bouncing beach balls’ her way. Christiane Amanpour’s husband is James Rubin who used to work in the Clinton Administration.

    BTW….Why isn’t the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?

    1. What evil things, exactly, is the Clinton Foundation supposed to have done or be doing?

      1. You’re right. The Clinton Foundation is a family charity doing good work around the world – especially in Haiti. There was no ‘Quid Pro Dough’ (much of the evidence of wrong doing has been properly destroyed) and we know nothing will ever be ‘investigated.’

      2. It wasn’t supposed to do ANY evil things. Lots of non-profit organizations give contracts to friends and large contributors. There’s a non-profit networking group for finance people which is used to help its leaders get contracts for temporary jobs – which it then fills from members of the group.

    2. And let’s not forget the reason why Comey had so much power in the investigation is because Hillary’s husband Bill secretly (and unethically) met with the Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her airplane and when it was found out, Lynch delegated the prosecutorial decision to Comey. Comey then had a press conference where he outlined all of the evidence supporting indictment, but then summed it all up by saying Hillary didn’t mean to do it – so case closed. She got some big breaks and every last bit of Hillary’s loss is attributable to Hillary.

      1. It can be attributed to her, her campaign, the media Comey and Putin.

      2. If the meeting on the airplane was a secret, how come so many people know about it? I take it you are 100% sure the only purpose of this meeting was for some sort of skulduggery….

        1. The public found out about the meeting because a reporter happened to be at the airport and noticed Bill’s plane still sitting on the tarmac. He hung around to see why and was able to capture the meeting and it went viral. Are you still employed by Correct the Record?

    3. Comey in today’s hearing: We found classified material on Anthony Weiner’s laptop that was forwarded from Hillary’s email by his wife Huma Abedin – and at the time Weiner did not have proper security clearance. Wanna bet nothing happens to him or Huma? Weiner is also being investigated for improper conduct with a minor.

      Meanwhile two-time loser Hillary is off being honored with yet another award at yet another star-studded gala for Planned Parenthood. Word has it Hillary is starting a new PAC as well. She ain’t going away people.

      1. Isn’t everyone getting sick of the crooked Clintons and Trumps and their cohorts. Please tell me that Pence is not crooked.

        1. I don’t know if he’s crooked or not, but he IS a religious zealot who is quite sure that women do not own their own bodies. Parenthetically, I don’t know how far down the presidential succession list we would have to go, to get somebody rational and reasonable.

        2. Ummm…Respected Francesca. Do you really “prefer” a thriving lunatic like Parson Pence whose soothing speech pattern recalls Dr. Hannibal Lecter’s in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? Me neither. But under the circumstances, give me King Kong throwing Kong-Poo from Trump Tower nightly. Call me old fashioned but I like my catastrophes where I can see ’em.

          “Hope for the best, expect the worst”. – THE 12 CHAIRS; Mel Brooks, 1970

            1. All too true, Miz Francesca 🙂 OTOH, do y’all think Our Benito either knows nor cares what Ivanka thinks of Pence or vice-versa? Polio put the young, privileged FDR flat on his back next to “Useless Eaters” like us for the first time in his life. FDR apparently never forgot the lesson. Similarly, as long as we the unwashed stay within our respective echo chambers, why should the Clintons or Trumps or the Peter Thiels give a damn, save at election times? Forgive my rhetorical questions and consider Irene Sender and what she did.

              THE LADY PLUMBER

              Remember this lady?
              WHAT A WOMAN
              Irena Sender
              Died: May 12, 2008 (aged 98)
              Warsaw, Poland
              During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw ghetto,
              as a Plumbing/Sewerspecialist.She had an ulterior motive.
              Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom
              of the tool box she carried.
              She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck,
              for larger kids.
              Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark
              when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.
              The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do
              with the dog and the barking
              covered the kids/infants noises.
              During her time of doing this,she managed to
              smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.
              Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazis
              broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely.
              Irena kept a record of the names of all the
              kids she had smuggled out
              in a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard.
              After the war, she tried to locate any parents that
              may have survived
              and tried to reunite the family.
              Most had been gassed.
              Those kids she helped got placed into foster family
              homes or adopted.
              In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize.
              She was not selected.
              Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.
              Later another politician, Barack Obama, won for
              SIMPLY BEING

              It is now more than 65 years since the Second World War in Europe ended.
              This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, In memory of the six million Jews, 20 million
              Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred,
              Now, more than ever, with Iran, and others, claiming the HOLOCAUST to be ‘a myth’, it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.
              This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!
              Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it around the world.
              Please send this e-mail to people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain.

              Please don’t just delete it. It will only take you a minute to pass this along.

              1. Trump hired 6 Goldman officials while saying he was draining the swamp. You knew Goldman came with Clinton but Trump conned us.

  14. If it weren’t for Comey, she might be President.
    If it weren’t for her stupid switch from focusing on the issues to copying the idiot Trump’s jingoism, trying to attract the simple minded, she might be President.
    If it weren’t for the Democrats ignoring the easily attracted through finger pointing and hatred, she might be President.
    If it weren’t for Clinton’s ego, thought she had it in the bag, she might be President.
    If she doesn’t just shut up and go away and let Trump self destruct then he might still be President in 2020. The the most patriotic service Clinton can perform is to go do charity work. There is no way the public will accept Trump like behavior from anyone but Trump. She blew it when she attempted to present herself as stable, honest, etc and like any politician it blew up in her face. With Trump we have had decade after decade understanding that he is mentally unbalanced and just rich, born into wealth and privilege. Americans love a lottery winner, royalty, the mega rich, not so much someone like them who turned out to be just another sleaze bag.
    It’s amazing how the ego that takes someone to heights is their own worst enemy.

    1. No, we don’t want Hillary to go away just yet. It’s still too much fun watching her NOT be president.

  15. I heard it all on the day of the election when I worked the polls. “We can’t have that ugly woman!”

    1. These reactions still puzzle me. No one seems to claim that Hillary was too uneducated or too inexperienced or too technically unqualified to be President. But too ugly? Is it really a beauty contest ??

        1. Remember when the fly landed on Hillary’s face during the debate?

        2. Exactly. It was her ugly character and total lack of values that caused voters to reject her.

          1. So, exactly what ACTIONS of Hillary’s indicated an “ugly character” or “lack of values”?

            1. Ask the fly, that landed on her face and blouse, which could not resist from crawling all over her. The fly knows. No fooling Mother Nature. She is not only full of sh@t, it emanates from her very being. #theflyknows

            2. Sacrificing the security of our country to protect herself from FOIA requests
              Sacrificing the well-being of our country for her own financial gains
              Sacrificing the incredibly poor and downtrodden people of Haiti for her own financial gains
              Using her slimy “access for sale” to get her daughter a $600,000 job right out of college
              Using her slimy “access for sale” to get money into her foundation to pay for her daughter’s wedding
              Lying about Bengazi
              Lying about the personal server
              Lying about coloring her hair…no, wait…she admitted to that

              I could go on, but I’m hoping you might be starting to get it by now, Jay S

              1. No, I’m not getting it.
                1) How has the security of our country been endangered? (Say, compared to having Russian agents in the Trump administration ….?)
                2) What part of our country’s well-being has been sacrificed for her financial gains? ( Say, compared to Trump snuggling up to dictators, just because he has hotel properties in their countries?)
                3) How, exactly, have the poor and downtrodden of Haiti been sacrificed? And how would Hillary have benefited from this?
                4) What, exactly, was exchanged in order for Chelsea to get a job?
                5) Are you asserting that the foundation paid for Chelsea’s wedding? Any proof? (Say, compared to “One day after President-elect Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka spoke to “60 Minutes” about her father’s rise to power, her jewelry line alerted journalists to a surprising fact: The incoming first daughter was wearing an Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry-brand bracelet, which could be bought for $10,800.”
                6) Bengazi was investigated numerous times by Congressional committees, even ones headed by Republicans, and no evidence was ever produced that she had done anything wrong. Among other things, the Secretary of State does not set the security budget for protecting embassies and consulates. And the Secretary of State cannot “call in the mililtary,” particularly on short notice. The military works for the Secretary of Defense.
                7) The personal server question has a lot of nuances, but the most significant point is, was there in fact any classified information on it? The Secretary of State is the final arbiter of potential classified information generated within the Department of State. Not the FBI, not anyone else. Other agencies can claim that they would have classified something if it were within their own departments, but they are outsiders looking in. It was the Secretary of State’s position that nothing on the server was classified, certainly at the time it was placed there. Now, various people have made should-have-been-classified opinions after the fact, but they are not the final classification authority for the State Department.
                8) What color hair do you suppose the Mango Mussolini actually has? I vote for “white as snow.”

                No, I’m not getting it.

                1. And you never will. I hope they pay you well.

  16. Talk about not taking responsibility! Her husband couldn’t do that either. What a disfunctional couple. This country is so lucky that these people are in our past. I hope they don’t resurface.

    1. We love the Trump dynasty. No one pays any attention to the Kardashians with the Trump Dynesty in power. What will Princess Ivanka and Prince Jared do today?

  17. LMAO they finally figured out what a simple glance at the poll results especially the makeup of the 40%ers. Anti Clinton party bolters were a big chunk so the NYT finally wakes up and snells the roses of reality. Dumb asses they ought to try journalism instead of propaganda for a change.

Comments are closed.