Democrats Continue To Blame Others For Election Loss And Ignore Their Mistakes

The Hill reported once again today that Dems grapple with lessons from Clinton disaster. As Joe Tippi pointed out, the election was so close that any of the factors cited could have changed the outcome. However, what Democrats miss is that the factors cited, including alleged Russian hacking the letter by James Comey, would have not affected the election if not for misconduct by Clinton and the Democrats who helped make her the nominee.

Harry Reid, who is well known for saying whatever he thinks will help politically, even when there are no facts to support him, is using both of these arguments. He said that James Comey cost Clinton the election. He ignores the fact the Democratic Party stacked the deck for Hillary Clinton despite the information which was readily available of Clinton’s misconduct in handling her email. If Clinton had not violated the rules in effect, as has been verified by the State Department Inspector General Report, and had not handled classified information in a careless manner, there would not have been an FBI investigation to harm Clinton’s campaign.

Reid also blames Russia. Not only does he repeat the unproven claims already made, he goes beyond this to claim that the Trump campaign was in on Russian hacking. As he thinks that James Comey is a partisan out to get Clinton, he would probably not be interested in the fact that the FBI found no such link. This also ignores the fact that the email leaked to Wikileaks, which has not even been proved to have come from Russia, would never have been a problem if not what the email showed about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has now joined efforts to use the dubious Russia argument to challenge the legitimacy of the election, after she made such a big deal of questioning whether Donald Trump would accept the results. Of course Clinton knows about foreign meddling in elections, considering how she supported doing so in past Russian and Palestinian elections.

Donald Trump ultimately won because the Democratic Party made a huge mistake in rigging the system to nominate a candidate as unfit for the presidency as Hillary Clinton. There would have been no FBI investigation, and no problems with the revelations in the leaked email, if the party had nominated a more suitable candidate such as Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump won because the Democratic Party rigged the system to nominate a candidate as dreadful as Clinton–and Harry Reid was a big part of this in Nevada. Blaming the FBI investigation of Clinton, or what was in the Wikileaks email, only acts to show how big a mistake it was to nominate Clinton.


  1. 1
    Ray says:

    Actually I beg to differ with you on some of your points.

    Your dubious "Russia argument" comment I find very interesting. I was not aware that you get the same kind of National Security briefing as Reid does. You seem to have skimmed over the fact that now McConnell is requesting an investigation based upon the same information that Reid received. 

    Far as votes go the DNC has it's problems yes indeed aided by little things like voter suppression, long lines do to closed voting stations. Yet on the populace vote Hillary has well over 2.8 million over Trump.

    But poo, pooing off interference by Russia is a huge error in judgement and dangerous for Democracy of any size.


  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    In the previous post I did state that this should be investigated. This his hardly "poo, pooing off" any interference–if it was shown to have existed. That is an entirely different matter than to excuse Clinton's loss on this, or to extend it beyond what there is any evidence of. I commented further on how weak the evidence is, so far, in the previous post on this subject. At this point, the evidence regarding Russia looks even weaker than the evidence cited to justify the Iraq war.

    Clinton's victory in the popular vote does not mean a thing. Results are based upon the electoral college. While I would like to see this changed, these are the current rules. The candidates campaigned based upon these rules. If the election was based upon the popular vote the candidates would have campaigned with different strategies. Trump might have won the popular vote if he campaigned for more votes in states which are not currently battleground states, where he didn't bother this year. There is no way to know who would have won the election if based upon the popular vote.

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is also a huge error in judgment and dangerous for a Democracy of any size to blindly accept claims from hawks. Look back at Viet Nam, and more recently Iraq and Libya. Definitely investigate, but do not build conspiracy theories in the absence of evidence as Clinton supporters are doing.

  4. 4
    Mike Hatcher says:

    There is a much larger point in my opinion. The biggest set back to Hillary winning the general election was Hillary Rodham Clinton. From the start with her fake/staged Iowa coffeehouse meetings, her obstructing-stalling on every inquiry, to picking a very uninteresting VP running mate.  Imagine if you had a job interview that you knew if you were late you would not get, and you squander hours playing games or watching T.V. and then at the last possible minute, when you are trying to run out the door, your small child that you needed to drop off at day care misbehaves causing you to lose two minutes. So if you were only one minute late and lost the job, how much anger should you have at the kid vs. your own self? Hackers are going to hack, go ahead and investigate them, prosecute if you can, but Hillary only needs to look in the mirror if she wants to really know why she lost.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Agree. Clinton was a highly flawed candidate, and made multiple mistakes in her campaign. This was also quite predictable and Democrats were extremely foolish in nominating her.

Leave a comment