Since the 2016 Presidential election there has been much speculation as to why Hillary Clinton lost to a billionaire, political novice, Donald J. Trump.  Let us examine some of these excuses and put the blame where it properly belongs.

Russian Hacking

     Even if you desperately desire to embrace the absurd notion that there was an organized attempt to affect the US election by Russia, there is absolutely NO evidence that this actually happened.  In truth, it has always been the US that has been the meddler in the elections of other nations with their paid NGOs (non government organizations).  Hillary Clinton herself tried to de-ligitimize Putin's election, which is probably why the Russians actually did prefer Trump over Clinton, but that doesn't mean there is any concrete and credible evidence that the Russian government actually tried to meddle.  And the notion that they could actually change any election results is absolute nonsense. 

     Furthermore, it is equally true that Russia saw a Clinton victory as a step toward war, and thus was more sympathetic to a Trump candidacy, however, that again proves nothing, except that Russia doesn't want war. .  The fact is, when Green Party candidate Jill Stein got a recount in Wisconsin, it was discovered that over 300 people who had voted for Trump, were not counted the first time around.  In short, if there was any fraud, it was against Trump, not for him.  Exit polls showed that 65% of the voters had already made up their minds in September, before even the Podesta emails became known, which the Clintonistas falsely argue were provided to Wikileaks by Russian hackers. Truth is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who hasn't been wrong in 10 or so years, stated that the person(s) who provided Wikileaks with those e-mails, was NOT a state player.  But then Podesta was a numbskull who fell for rather amateurish phishing.

     Lastly, if there was any voter fraud it was in pro-Clinton states like California with large Hispanic populations, many of them illegal.  Prior to the election, former President Barack Obama encouraged illegals to vote for Clinton, assuring them they would not be prosecuted.  This is what gave Clinton the popular vote.  Regardless, the popular vote is not how we elect the President in the United States, and Clinton and Obama knew this, as did Trump, who developed a winning election strategy with this in mind. 

 The Blue Wall

     The Blue Wall represents those industrial states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, etc…  These states traditionally vote Democrat.  Trump was able to win these states despite that tradition.  He did this by appealing to the working class which had been ignored by the elites that forced Free Trade down their throats, and at their expense. 

     The Clinton campaign ignored these states, thinking that they were in the bag.  When AFL-CIO leaders tried to warn them that they were in danger of losing these states, the Clinton campaign ignored them, claiming that they were projected to win by 5%.  Even warnings from the neo-communist film maker, Michael Moore were ignored.  So convinced of this 5% buffer, the Clinton campaign had Hillary visit only one of these crucial states once.  This was a significant tactical error.   Perhaps this was a case of believing your own propaganda which Lenin disingenuously warned against, so she should have known better.  Her own propaganda was of course the globalist media (like CNN and MSNBC) and pollsters who thought they could herd the American people into voting for Hillary by making extravagant claims of an anticipated Clinton landslide.  Those kind of predictions, when proven false, left many people angry and confused.  If these people feel justified in being angry, they should direct that anger not at Trump, but at those who misled them.


     The whole Democratic Party approach to elections worked well for Bill Clinton and Obama, but it has become antiquated.  Basically, the Democrats advocate what they call Triangulation:  you take three major segments of society, and unite them to overcome their opponents.  This is similar to the Roman tactic of Divide et Impera: Divide and Rule.  In Hillary Clinton’s case it was women, blacks and Hispanics.  The trouble with this is that many blacks were not excited by Clinton (she only got 88% compared to Obama’s 93%), and many women viewed Clinton as being part of what’s wrong in Washington: corrupt, callous and the anti-feminine, feminist.  In fact 53% of White Women voted against Clinton. Overall, she only received 65% of Hispanics, compared to Obama’s 71%.  In fact, she actually received 2% fewer White votes than Obama. 

      Clinton’s attempt to appeal to the more radical element in her own Party probably contributed to her fall.  Basically, she tried to out Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders.  Even the Communist party backed her.  So, in effect, Sanders forced Clinton so far to the Left, that not even the globalist media could undo the damage.    But let's face it, her history of corruption and of being disingenuous, with her mimicking black speech, of phony Kosovo heroism, her rudeness, and her endless screeching, did nothing to encourage Americans to vote for her. 

     It wasn’t Trump who defeated her, it was Hillary Clinton herself, her campaign staff, and their combined hubris which led to gross miscalculations.  And it was this that put Trump in the White House.   v