Clinton bizarrely scapegoats Supreme Court for the 2016 election

[corbe]

Clinton bizarrely scapegoats Supreme Court for the 2016 election

By Hans Bader  March 4, 2019

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she spent virtually no time or money on swing states like Wisconsin, even as she wasted millions of dollars on voter turnout in states that she was already guaranteed to win or lose (like turning out voters in New Orleans and Chicago, even though she knew she would lose Louisiana and win Illinois no matter what). The net result of her foolishness was that she failed to carry most swing states, and thus lost in the all-important Electoral College, even as she got more popular votes than Donald Trump.

But she won’t accept responsibility for her mistakes. Instead, she has a scapegoat for her loss: the Supreme Court. She claims a Supreme Court ruling cost her the election. But in reality, it didn’t affect the electoral vote count at all, and hardly changed Trump’s victory margin in swing states like Wisconsin.

CNS News reported that Clinton “blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act: ‘I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act,’ Clinton said.” In reality, most of the Voting Rights Act remains in force, and people can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act if state laws have the purpose or effect of discriminating against racial or language minorities. The Supreme Court struck down only one section of the Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), a provision that treated some states differently than others.

Clinton falsely claims she lost in Wisconsin due to its voter ID law, which went into effect in 2015 after the Supreme Court declined to block it. She claimed:

<..snip..>

https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/03/04/clinton-bizarrely-scapegoats-supreme-court-for-the-2016-election/

[edpc]

She has her own campaign ineptitude and Jill Stein to thank for losing WI and MI. Even if she won both of them, she still lost the big EV states of PA, OH, and FL, so it’s irrelevant.

[libertybele]

Oh good grief.  Two years later and the old broad still has to come up with an excuse.  How about accepting the fact that you lost Hillary??  You lost. You're never going to be president and you should be wearing an orange jumpsuit.  Go home and play with your grandchildren, get over it and never darken this country's door again!

[Dexter]

How about accepting the fact that you lost Hillary??  You lost. You're never going to be president

Lol, something tells me it felt pretty good to type that.

[corbe]

    It may be time for a will she/wont she hellary poll.

[corbe]

   The poor soul, there's only one thing worse than losing, is to lose to the guy you wanted to win the GOP primary. 
   That's stupid on multiple levels.

[libertybele]

Lol, something tells me it felt pretty good to type that.

Indeed.  The old great mare she ain't what she used to be!!   

[libertybele]

    It may be time for a will she/wont she hellary poll.

Go for it!

[jafo2010]

She will run.  She will come to the rescue of the Democommies.  She is waiting until each and every last fool that thinks they can win the nod declares they are running.  WE have Hickenlooper announcing, and there will be others.  I suspect it will go above 20, and when it does, HRC will declare the number of folks asking her to run is constant, so I will be running after all.

Remember, the more people running, the more they split the 60% of the no Clinton vote.  She has a solid 35-40% base that will turn out to vote for her.  And while Sanders will get a good 10-20%, the rst of the no Clinton vote will be divided between the others in the clown car.  She breezes to a victory.