Posted on 12/15/2016 4:29:45 PM PST by Trump20162020
The hardest thing about explaining very close election defeats is that you can talk yourself into believing any number of factors, large or small, could have made the crucial difference. Hillary Clintons defeat came down to 100,000 votes in three states out of nearly 130 million cast nationally. Thats a deficit so tiny that the search for a single culprit will probably take political detectives down the dark road to madness.
It is understandable that within the ranks of the Clinton campaigns own high command, it is an article of faith that FBI director James Comey cost HRC the presidency by making the ridiculous email-server issue the dominant subject of conversation during the crucial last days of the campaign. It was an external event that came out of the blue (or more specifically, out of the fevered libido of Anthony Weiner) and reinforced doubts about Clintons trustworthiness among a small group of undecided voters in key states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
I’ll bet the girls are lining up to date this troll.
Wow.
That headline is...
1. Too funny
2. Too stupid for words
3. Shirking responsibility for the loss
4. Fake news
5. All of the above and then some
Oh, howls of derisive laughter. Too smart? Those garden slugs?
She didn’t lose by 100kvotes. She lost by that, plus the margin of fraud.
Two million? Ten million? Somebody should find out. It’s a perfect opportunity, since Trump won.
6... p@ssword
Ah, yes...the elitist Democrats...always too smart for the world. (No, didn’t read the article...won’t waste my time)
Sure....that’s the problem....
Clinton was just too damn smart. /sarc
She was smart alright.
The secret word is: "hubris".
And what kind of "campaign" was she running, anyway?
Crawl out of her bunker once a week to make an appearance at Hollywood fundraisers, collect millions of $ from donations, then go back into a drunken stupor for some "me time" with Huma for another couple of days.
Then off to Silicon Valley for a 50K/plate fundraiser.
When she deigned to lower herself to the vast unwashed, she could barely fill a high school gym. That's counting the press.
She simply treated the average person like they were crap on her highness' shoe.
Avoiding the press for almost a year helped, too.
Typical leftist arrogance. Even when they lose, it’s because they are too smart and so much better than the Great Unwashed.
For some odd reason, we deplorables don’t appreciate our good fortune in having our betters supervise our lives.
I see he and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have the same hairdresser
That goes a long way to explain why Team Clinton lost.
They thought they couldn't lose, so they didn't pay attention and didn't do the things they would have needed to do to win.
Saying that they were too smart is part irony, and part a way of softening his criticism to please Hillary voters.
I love the smell of Napalm in Morning. ... It smells like victory. I play Wagner, it scares the shit of the slopes.
Contrasted with "Why aren't I 50 points Ahead???" attitude...
Meaning YOU WORTHLESS SCUM OWE IT TO ME!
Arrogance and presumptuousness not seen since Adlai Stevenson.
I was in a court case once where one of the opposing counsel obviously thought he was smarter than the judge and he consistently acted like it. The attorneys for the other parties started avoiding him in court like he was toxic. No surprise that as the trial went on, the trial judge reamed him—no one was surprised.
heh heh
Nothing new. Dems also claim Adlai Stevenson lost because he was ‘too smart’.
" Never looked at it that way."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.