You are here

Hilary And Her New Excuses For Losing

Hilary And Her New Excuses For Losing

Mike Huckabee, June 1, 2017

Every time Hillary Clinton speaks these days, it’s like an exciting riverboat ride on De Nile. You know she’ll talk about the election, but some new surprising reason always pops up for why she lost. In an interview at the Recode Code Conference, Hillary took full responsibility for her loss before immediately blaming it on Russia; fake news on social media; the press making a big deal over her unsecure email server, which she called “the biggest nothing burger ever” (so I guess if any secret intelligence sources were killed because her cavalier handling of classified information revealed their identities, or if Americans in Benghazi died because her leaked emails revealed their lack of security, their causes of death should officially be listed as “lethal indigestion from a nothing burger”); and in a new development, the Democratic Party and the DNC, which she claimed gave her nothing – aside from stacking the primaries against Bernie and giving her CNN’s townhall questions in advance.

Not that I want to encourage her, but it can’t be a wise idea to trash the DNC if you’re planning to run and lose for a third time in 2020.

One person who didn’t take kindly to being Hillary Clinton’s latest scapegoat for losing the election (which she really won!) is Andrew Therriault. He was head of the data team for the DNC, the people who compiled the polling data that she dismissed as “mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong.” Therriault took to Twitter to defend his people and his numbers. You can read those tweets, along with a couple he later deleted, at the link. Warning, he utilizes a few favorite Democratic Party words that most red state folks don’t repeat in polite company.

For Hillary to blame the DNC data team for her own bad campaign decisions is as disingenuous as her blaming Russia or “fake news” or the powerful conservative media or that horrible mainstream media that treated her so badly while not attacking Donald Trump (where did she give his interview, on Bizarro World?) In one of his deleted tweets, Therriault claimed the DNC data team never had Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania looking anywhere close to safe for Hillary, but “her team thought they knew better.” This would jibe with the book “Shattered,” which revealed that Bill Clinton tried to warn her campaign that she needed to shore up support from blue collar voters, but her data guru sniffily dismissed the guy who’d actually won the Presidency twice, saying that Bill’s anecdotal evidence didn’t match his data set.

In truth, the only truly bad data out there was in Hillary’s campaign and all the polls that kept trying to convince us the race was over. I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this because I was one of only a tiny handful of media figures who predicted a Trump win and stuck to it even when a WaPo poll had Hillary ahead by 11 points. Interviewers would chuckle and roll their eyes at poor deluded ol’ Uncle Huck, or assume that I was just trying to put a brave spin on the disaster. No, it’s just that after a lifetime in politics, I know how to read the internals of polls, and I know garbage when I see it. Those polls assumed there was so much enthusiasm for Hillary that she would draw even more black votes than Obama, when she couldn’t even fill a high school gym. One “shock poll” that showed her winning in Arizona had to oversample Democrats by 24 points to get her a 5-point lead. How could anyone possibly have believed that? Only because they wanted to believe it so badly. But Hillary Clinton isn’t Tinkerbell. Clapping and saying, “I DO believe in Hillary!” won’t make her President.

It’s said that the worst thing a politician can do is to start believing his (or her) own propaganda. I can’t imagine the DNC data people were dumb enough to make that mistake, but judging from Hillary’s recent comments, I’m absolutely convinced she believed it.