Hillary Is Still In Denial About How She Lost the Election

Poor Hillary Clinton is on the blame-game tour after the release of her latest faux autobiography ironically called What Happened.

The problem with the book and its title is that she’s offering up for just about anyone who will listen half a dozen theories to explain what she’d like us to think happened, none of which are close to the truth.

Then again, that’s par for the course.

She’s been literally all over the world peddling theories like Russia hacking to James Comey’s investigation to voter fraud to misogyny and sexism to Bernie Sanders failed promotion (did we miss anything?).

But as a recent report reveals, her own fellow Democrats in the key battleground states are telling it like it is: they just didn’t like her and what she was selling.

Need we say more?

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

The 2016 presidential election is more than 10 months old, but Hillary Clinton is still in denial about how she lost it.

In her new book, What Happened, Clinton is unsparing in her criticism of her vanquisher, Donald Trump, and blames a host of people for her historic loss, including primary foe Bernie Sanders, former FBI Director James Comey, former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and even the media.

One thing Clinton doesn’t blame is her own campaign strategy, particularly her campaign’s approach to the Midwest. “Some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning enough in the Midwest,” she writes. “And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple of thousand voters here or there.”

Clinton writes that her campaign was fully aware that winning the industrial Midwest was crucial for her, and that she in fact didn’t ignore those states.

Steve Bieda, who represents part of Macomb County in the Michigan state Senate, said that while he didn’t think Clinton ignored southern Michigan, he suspects that “more of a presence, and perhaps an earlier presence, could have made the difference” in a state Trump won by fewer than 11,000 votes. Bieda mentioned that Trump held two rallies in Macomb County within 10 days of the election; Clinton didn’t hold any there.

Clinton’s bigger problem was that she didn’t market her policy prescriptions very well, Bieda said, and that “Trump’s anti-NAFTA message resonated.” When I met with Bieda in Warren in August, he said that Clinton speeches were too wonky while Trump’s were like “a 2×4 over people’s heads.” The implication was that Trump’s straight talk worked with Macomb’s working class voters.

You Might Also Like