Clintons Continue To Blame Others For Their Loss But Democrats Must Face The Facts To Recover

Normally when someone loses an election they keep relatively quiet. I thought that the horror of seeing Donald Trump being elected president would at least be balanced by being through with the Clintons. That has not been the case. Since losing the election Hillary Clinton, who has never had a very good record on First Amendment issues, has essentially been promoting censorship when calling on Congress to take action against the “fake news” which has been negative towards her, along with fueling the recent surge in anti-Russia hysteria. The Clintons are also keeping Democrats from taking an honest look at why they lost with their constant claims that they lost because of Russia, James Comey, angry white men, Bernie voters, Stein voters, and the media, never taking any responsibility for the terrible campaign Clinton ran and her flaws which kept people from wanting to vote for her.

Michael Daly commented on this at The Daily Beast:

Former President Bill Clinton is quick to apportion blame for his wife’s defeat.
“James Comey cost her the election,” Clinton was quoted telling a group of holiday shoppers during an impromptu chat in a Westchester County bookshop last week.

But he has yet to place any blame at all on an otherwise great man with a great fault who bears considerably more responsibility for Hillary Clinton’s loss.

That man is Bill Clinton himself. His great fault is one he shares with his wife; they too often act as if rules that apply to you or me do not apply to them.

Clinton apologists totally ignore the fact that there would have not been a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton if Clinton had not violated the rules regarding handling email, as documented in the State Department Inspector General report, and then go on to repeatedly lie about the situation.

Similarly, Clinton would not have been harmed by the hacking of John Podesta’s email (regardless of whether they were Wikileaks source–which has not been proven), if the email did not contain such incriminating information about the actions of Clinton and the DNC.

It would have also been better if Clinton had come clean on everything months earlier when the scandals broke, rather than engaging in a coverup, putting herself at risk of all hell breaking loose in the final days of the campaign.

None of this might have mattered if Clinton hadn’t run such a terrible campaign. This includes the mistakes made in states such as Michigan, and ignoring the advice of Sanders supporters. Asawin Suebsaeng wrote:

Ever since election night—when Hillary Clinton tanked and Donald Trump became the next leader of the free world—the most prominent allies and alumni of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign have maintained a succinct message for Team Hillary: We. Told. You. So.

In the final months of the brutal and chaotic 2016 campaign, there were plenty of Democratic activists freaking out about Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (the three states that ultimately cost the Democrats the White House) and Clinton’s fatal shortcomings there. Many of them were envoys of the Sanders camp who wanted to help fix those problems, including Clinton’s difficulties with the block of the mythical “white-working-class,” economically anxious voters who Sanders had championed during the primaries.

“They fucking ignored us on all these [three] battleground states [while] we were sounding the alarm for months,” Nomiki Konst, a progressive activist and former Sanders surrogate who served on the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform committee, told The Daily Beast. “We kept saying to each other like, ‘What the fuck, why are they just blowing us off? They need these voters more than anybody.’”

Later in the article:

“The Clinton campaign believed they had the strongest and brightest people in the room… and they had no concept of why people would choose Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton,” Kleeb continued. “They mocked us, they made fun of us. They always had a… model that was supposed to save the day. We were street activists and they don’t get that. And that’s a fundamental divide. They ran a check-the-box, sanitized campaign. And voters don’t think like that. You don’t win elections that way.”

Clinton failed to take advantage of what the Sanders campaign had already figured out about the electorate in 2016, and ignored the voters who backed Sanders over her in the primaries. Dave Lindorff discussed how It Wasn’t the Russians: Hillary Lost Because She Blew Off Sanders and His Voters:

The truth is that it was Clinton’s own actions that lost her the support of Sanders voters. Her repeating lying about Sanders during the campaign, and her gratuitous dissing of Sanders and his supporters even after it was becoming clearer that she would win the primary because of the corrupt support she had lined up from the party’s unelected so-called “super delegates,” and her decision in the fall, after winning the nomination, to ignore the 13 million Sanders voters from the primary and instead to pursue the support of what she hoped were disenchanted Republican voters upset that Donald Trump had won the Republican nomination, all doomed her in the general election.

If the Democrats are to recover, they must learn from the mistakes they made in nominating a flawed candidate such as Hillary Clinton,  along with also suffering loses when running as a Republican-lite party in 2010 and 2014. It does no good to claim Clinton did nothing wrong in the email/Foundation scandals as many Clinton supporters still argue, or to place the blame on others for losing the election.


  1. 1
    SocraticGadfly says:

    Or if the DNC hadn't had such crappy computer security. Remember the Bernie staffer a year ago? Remember that, already then, on those servers, that was NOT the first time that DGP VAN had been a fail? Remember that DGP VAN was a DNC insider?

  2. 2
    Philo Vaihinger says:

    Actually, she got way more votes than Il Duce, but, as you know, the votes of Californians and New Yorkers just don't count as much as those of Montanans, Dakotans, or Alabamans.

    And Republicans have for days been assuring everyone with a straight face that that is as it should be.

    A feature, not a bug.

    And certainly not, er, rigged.

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    Philio, I agree 1) that the president should be elected by popular vote and 2) that the Republican argument discounting California and New York are nonsense. Every vote should count, and count equally.

    However, Clinton’s win in the popular vote doesn’t mean much. The election was conducted based upon the electoral vote system and candidates based their strategy based upon this–or at least Trump did. They would have campaigned differently if the winner was based upon the popular vote. Trump would have used a different strategy if the election was based upon the popular vote. He would have campaigned in states such as New York and California where he didn’t bother, and possibly would have campaigned to have higher turnout in red states. There is no way to say who would have won if the election was based upon the popular vote.

    The only rigging was in the Democratic nomination. The general election was not rigged. Trump won fairly based upon the rules in effect while Clinton supporters are making up arguments to deny the results of the election–exactly what they complained that Trump would do before the election.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    SocraticGadfly. Plus it looks like they fell for a rather basic phishing scheme, and blew it with what they now say was a typo, (writing legitimate instead of illegitimate in response to a question as to whether they should respond to the phishing email). It is hard to say how much the Wikileaks email mattered as it primarily provided evidence of what critics of Clinton from the left already were pretty sure was going on.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Looks like BPI Campus (per the Trackback) is in denial of how awful a candidate Clinton was. The simple fact that she lost to Trump should be enough to convince people of that. I don’t know if Sanders would have won in a landslide, but the polling data suggests he would have won. We also know that, compared to Clinton, Sanders could pull in crowds, get the young voters to turn out in better numbers, and had more support in both the swing states and the rust belt. Plus with Bernie there would have been no scandals, no FBI investigations, and no embarrassing revelations about how the DNC rigged the nomination battle. Sanders probably could have beaten Trump and lead the Democrats to take control of the Senate–which is probably true of pretty much any possible candidate other than Clinton.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment