Why @HillaryClinton’s #Hillary2016 Deserved To Lose; Why @RealDonaldTrump Deserved To Win

Update: All we wrote starting in 2007 about the disaster of the Obama situation comedy “coalition” and that it would lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party is now confirmed. We attacked the demographic fantasies and delusions woven by John Judis (who eventually was forced by reality to recant) and Ruy Teixeira, which led to the Obama nomination, as madness. By 2015 we prevailed with our analysis and Judis rewrote the “emerging Democratic majority” into “the emerging Republican advantage“. We were correct. Hillary2016 would not listen to our warnings (“Hillary Clinton 2016 take note of the Mistake in ’08 and don’t repeat them or get tied to them in 2016. Matt Bai regurgitates what we wrote years ago:

Democrats lost because for a while now they’ve been telling themselves a story about modern politics. [snip]

This particular story goes all the way back to 2002, when the writers Ruy Teixeira and John Judis published an influential book called “The Emerging Democratic Majority.” At a time when Democrats were dispirited, Teixeira and Judis argued, presciently, that the country’s demographics were evolving in ways that would ultimately favor their candidates. [snip]

Basically, the party’s leading funders and operatives decided that they didn’t have to pander to white people living outside of cities anymore, because with each passing year their voters were cementing a new majority and redrawing the electoral map. [snip]

Barack Obama’s two elections seemed to them to validate this new Democratic math. [snip]

And so this was Hillary’s driving theory of the race. [snip] She ran on a database, rather than on an argument; [snip]

But the Cult of Demography was built on some very flawed assumptions. [snip]

The second problem is that even if you buy that a Democrat can maximize turnout among minorities and the already converted, it doesn’t mean you can simply forget about everyone else. [snip]

According to excellent reporting by the New York Times’ Amy Chozick, no less a strategist than Bill Clinton himself argued to his wife’s campaign command that she, too, needed to speak to white working-class voters. No one listened. They were all about the database. [snip]

It assumes that Republicans can’t field a candidate who appeals to some larger segment of black or Latino voters, a third of whom voted Republican this year.

It assumes, too, that younger voters don’t grow more ideologically diverse as they age.

We were right. Hillary Clinton didn’t listen to us. Hillary Clinton deserved to lose. Donald J. Trump deserved to win.


Unhinged, psychotic, infantile, Hillary Clinton supporters are unable to work, crying, bereft of the will to go on with their pathetic lives because of the shock and surprise [???] of Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 elections. Just how stupid are these people? Hillary Clinton deserved to lose and it was obvious she was going to lose – as we charged repeatedly since at least 2013, because Hillary Clinton ran the dumbest, stupidest, campaign for president we have ever seen. Get that through your thick, whimpering, whiny, heads. Hillary2016 was the dumbest, stupidest, campaign we have ever seen. We call forth the witnesses for the prosecution, Bill Clinton, Trump hater Kurt Eichenwald, Mark Penn, and everyone with a mature brain that functions.

As the hapless children, of all ages up to and including 80 year olds, take to the streets in a further demonstration of impotence – we laugh. Just how stupid are these people? Don’t they additionally realize their public displays of infantile caterwauling stupidity help President-elect Donald J. Trump? The Hillary Clinton mopes and dopes who curse the stars and fates as if that would change the election results, prove over and over how stupid and infantile they are.

How stupid was Hillary Clinton this election cycle? Let’s discuss Hillary’s strategic decisions, campaign manager Robby Mook who lived up to his last name (just as Trump lived up to his), and the Obama protection squad Hillary Clinton paid to run her campaign even though their interest was to defend and protect Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with the campaign strategy stupidity. We won’t belabor our oft repeated statement going back years that 2016 was a change election year and that the candidate of change would win. Let’s examine instead another stupid campaign strategy. A campaign “strategy” that relied on winning the same or more black votes than Obama, was stupid. Get that through your thick wittle skulls children. Barack Obama, because of the color of his skin not the content of his character, incited a massive turnout of black voters in 2008, practically all of whom voted for Obama. In 2012 Obama also received practically all of the black vote, although black voters turned out in lower numbers than in 2008.

Further, as was proved in 2009, 2010, and 2014, the cult of Obama would not turn out for anyone other than Obama. Just look at the election results in those years. Hillary Clinton either was too stupid to bother looking at the election results for those years or she is just stupid generally.

Once Hillary Clinton, convinced by the Obama operatives she appointed to run her poll operations and much of the Hillary2016 apparatus, decided it was somehow smart to adopt the campaign strategy that relied on a black turnout equal to our surpassing the black turnout for Barack Obama, this led to further stupidity.

Further stupidity??? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Further stupidity such as almost always campaigning in black neighborhoods and black churches. Further stupidity as in embarrassments such as the ‘I always carry hot sauce in my purse’.

Whether Hillary loves hot sauce or it was just a pander is mostly irrelevant. The problem with the episode is that the all too obvious reliance on black voters alienated voters who were not black because why vote for someone who hardly ever comes to ask for your votes because you are not black? On election night this alienation of non-black voters (and black voters insulted by the all too obvious craving for black votes) came home to, um, roost. As anyone who remembers Bill Clinton’s Sista Soulja moment will understand, the significance of Bill’s rebuke of the black racist who suggested blacks kill white babies was that white voters and those of other races and ethnic groups were reassured that Bill Clinton would defend them too, not just black voters. Bill Clinton in 1992 understood that he had to appeal to voters of all races, not just pander to blacks, even if black voters are very important in Democratic Party politics.

Bill Clinton understood the deep strategic stupidity of Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016. Which brings us to Mook, “a stupid or incompetent person”. What the Dickens? Mook is very much a Dickensian tag name. Let’s just peek at a small section from a long article at Politico, about Hillary2016 concerning campaign manager Robby Mook:

There was little the Clinton operatives could do about the “scandals” they inherited when they signed up to work for the former secretary of state. But Clinton allies are also faulting the campaign for failing to develop a credible message for downscale white voters, arguing she could have won by a larger margin on the economy.

And some began pointing fingers at the young campaign manager, Robby Mook, who spearheaded a strategy supported by the senior campaign team that included only limited outreach to those voters — a theory of the case that Bill Clinton had railed against for months, wondering aloud at meetings why the campaign was not making more of an attempt to even ask that population for its votes. [snip]

But in general, Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map. At a meeting ahead of the convention at which aides presented to both Clintons the “Stronger Together” framework for the general election, senior strategist Joel Benenson told the former president bluntly that the voters from West Virginia were never coming back to his party.

That loser Mook, who was truly allied to Hillary Clinton and wanted her to win, did not fight the Obama stalwarts that had infected Hillary2016 like Ebola. But read that bit again about Joel Benenson and how the strategy he developed for Hillary2016 demanded he tell Bill Clinton that “the voters from West Virginia were never coming back” to the Democratic Party. This is what we wrote in April 2015:

Earlier we referred to Hillary as a blind-deaf drunk caught in a forest. Hillary’s blindness and deafness are self-afflicted. The eyes and ears of a candidate and her campaign are based on polls. Hillary has chosen for her campaign the Obama pollster Joel Benenson. Benenson’s chief interest is Obama protection not Hillary election. Hillary cannot see nor hear what her pollster won’t show or tell her. Hillary is effectively blind and deaf which renders her dumb. If you thought Mark Penn was a problem in 2008, compared to Benenson pollster Penn is a treasure.

For all intents and purposes Hillary has become The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua. Hillary is trapped in a strategic mess of her own making.

Joel Benenson did not give a whit about Hillary Clinton in 2016. Benenson wanted to give life to the lies of Obama2008. What were those lies? The biggest lie is that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton. No, it was Big Media that defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008. Put aside the corruptions which denied Florida and Michigan votes to be counted, because if they were counted Hillary Clinton would have had more votes than Barack Obama. What we mean is that Hillary Clinton was defeated in 2008 by Big Media because Big Media protected Barack Obama and attacked anyone who ran against Barack Obama (McCain too, then in 2012 Romney, in 2016 Donald J. Trump defeated Big Media).

But Joel Benenson and the others from Obama2008 convinced stupid Hillary Clinton that her campaign in 2008 failed because she (1) constantly made changes to her strategy and personnel; (2) the Obama “coalition” beat the FDR/Kennedy/Clinton coalition. In 2016 Joel Benenson wanted to prove once and for all that the Obama “situation comedy” demographic was the future for the Democratic Party even though all the evidence from 2009, 2010, 2014, proved otherwise.

Joel Benenson sabotaged Hillary2016 because his interest was to preserve the myths from 2008 about the “brilliant” Barack Obama campaign. Joel Benenson wanted to bury the Clinton coalition which courted the white working class. Smart Donald J. Trump came along and walked away with the Clinton Coalition (as we wrote in October of last year):

Donald J. Trump is not a conservative the GOP establishment likes nor a liberal the Democratic Party likes. Donald Trump will destroy the Republican Party as we now know it because Barack Obama destroyed the Democratic Party as we once knew it. The GOP has long contained a struggle between it’s populist voters and the big money Chamber of Commerce types that want a low wage society. Donald Trump is against a low wage society and therefore against illegal immigration. The white working class understands this. Enough of the black working class and the Latino working class understands this too.

The white working class chased out of the Democratic Party by Obama’s Kook coalition had no where to go but to the Republican Party. Now the former Democrats join in solidarity with the long time populist Republicans – ergo TRUMP.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Hillary2016 understands any of this.

That article from last year pretty much summarizes what happened on election day 2016. And here we will digress for a moment to further gloat about how on target we have been:

The next president of the United States will have a Republican controlled House of Representatives. Republicans will continue to control most state houses as well and in addition will continue exclusive control of both legislature and governors’ mansions in the majority of states. Because of Barack Obama’s illegal usurpations of constitutional order it is now also likely that the next president will also have a Republican Senate (especially if the Senators from South Dakota and West Virginia bolt from the lawless Obama Dimocrat Party).

All of that is exactly what happened. Hillary Clinton did not see the obvious however.

Hillary Clinton ran the dumbest, stupidest, campaign we have ever seen. Pity poor Bill Clinton as he watched Hillary2016 controlled by Obama acolyte Benenson and Robby the Mook. Poor, poor Bill Clinton saw the danger but could not change the mind of stupid Hillary Clinton:

Bill Clinton’s lonely, one-man effort to win white working-class voters

Bill Clinton stood before an audience of blue-collar workers in Lansing, Mich., two days before the presidential election and told them he understood and empathized with the economic frustrations of the working class.

“There’s a lot of road rage out there because after the financial crash, it took a long time before incomes started going up again. There are still some families that if you adjust for inflation, their incomes are about what they were the last day I was president more than 15 years ago and their costs are going up. And that’s really tough,” the former president drawled as he campaigned on behalf of his wife, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“So when you get up every morning, and you look in the mirror and you don’t think you’ve got the power to make tomorrow better than today, that’s a pretty tough load to carry,” he told an audience that included union laborers.

Compared to the main themes of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, the former president’s remarks in Lansing seemed like an off-script moment.

The team’s tightly coordinated list of talking points did not include much of anything on working-class woes.

It certainly did not include anything specific about addressing the anger and frustrations of white rural voters in the South and the region known as the Rust Belt, which spans Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. Once the epicenter of American industrialization, the Rust Belt has fallen on harder times, and teems now with voters who are unhappy about lost jobs, shuttered factories and struggling businesses.

Lansing, it turns out, was not a one-off incident for Bill Clinton. It certainly was not a first for him on the campaign trail.

His comments in Michigan marked the last leg of a lonely, one-man war he launched earlier in the election to appeal to working-class and white rural voters, whom senior Clinton staffers reportedly told him were not worth the time or effort. [snip]

Further, there was a major difference between how Bill Clinton and the rest of his wife’s team approached discussing the economy. As Hillary Clinton, Obama and others campaigned on the message that economic fortunes have improved greatly since 2008, and that they’ll only get better with another Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton was telling voters things have been extremely difficult for working Americans, and that those people need extra encouragement and help.

The only surrogate who came close to echoing Bill Clinton’s efforts was Bernie Sanders, who performed well with working-class voters during the Democratic primary. [snip]

For Hillary Clinton’s chief strategists, the unique challenge of reconciling working-class and white rural frustrations with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy proved too difficult a riddle, and they chose in the end to focus their efforts elsewhere, much to Bill Clinton’s reported protestation.

The former president saw early during the Democratic primary that his wife had a real problem connecting with these voters, many of whom overwhelmingly preferred Sanders’ message on jobs and trade.

Bill Clinton reportedly warned the campaign that they needed to address the issue immediately, but “his advice fell on deaf ears,” according to the New York Times.

Hillary Clinton’s 36-year-old campaign manager, Robby Mook, dismissed the advice of the 70-year-old former president as the ravings of an aged athlete desperate to regain his former glory, and insisted instead that young, Latino and black voters were the key to winning 2016. [snip]

Mook, who was tapped to manage the Clinton campaign in 2015, came to the Democratic nominee with a resume filled with wins and losses.

In 2002, he worked as a field director for Doug Racine’s failed gubernatorial campaign in Vermont. Mook then worked in 2004 as a deputy field director for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s failed Democratic primary campaign. Later that year, he joined the Democratic National Committee and headed get out the vote efforts in Wisconsin for then-Sen. John Kerry’s, D-Mass., failed presidential campaign. [snip]

In 2005, things started to look up for the young politico. [snip]

By the spring of 2016, Mook’s influence was such that senior staffers sided with him against the Democratic nominee’s husband.

The Clinton team never named a rural council, ignoring both the warnings of the former president and Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaign strategies, and had only one “staffer in Brooklyn” dedicated to rural outreach, Politico noted.

That staffer was not even tapped for that assignment until the final weeks of the election, the report added.

But as the campaign ignored Bill Clinton’s advice on courting working-class and rural whites, Bill Clinton ignored the campaign’s assessment that those voters weren’t worth the effort.

The aging ex-commander in chief decided to go it alone, and launched a personal campaign to win the ignored Americans in small, rural towns and cities across the Rust Belt and the South.

Bill Clinton’s remarks in Lansing two days before the election were no mistake, and, in his mind, it was not an off-script moment. For America’s 42nd president, who spoke at more than 60 campaign rallies, reaching out to these discarded voters became an increasingly crucial issue.

“In the final weeks of the campaign, a despondent Mr. Clinton held a flurry of his own events in Ohio, Iowa, the Florida Panhandle and Wisconsin, talking to the white voters who like him but who view his wife with distrust,” the New York Times reported.

When Bill Clinton spoke on the campaign trail about the voting bloc ignored by Mook and other senior staffers, he argued repeatedly that, as a white Southerner, he felt their pain.

He did this sometimes in unflattering terms, but usually from a place of self-deprecating humor.

“The other guy’s base is what I grew up in,” he said in October during a campaign stop in Fort Myers, Fla. “You know, I’m basically your standard redneck.”

His comments came as part of a larger appeal to his audience to reach out to undecided voters, especially pro-Trump supporters, and tell them the Democratic nominee understands and cares. [snip]

“I know how they feel,” he added in reference to angry and frustrated voters, many of whom gravitated toward Trump. “And I’m telling you, the older you get, the worse it is if … you think you can’t do anything to change the future.”

On the exact opposite side of things, Hillary Clinton handed the GOP and its supporters a rallying cry in September when she claimed at a fundraiser in New York City that “half” of Trump’s supporters were “irredeemable” bigots. [snip]

Despite these polarizing remarks, Hillary Clinton’s husband fought right up to the end to convince white working-class and rural voters that the Democratic nominee, who never once campaigned in Wisconsin, understood their concerns.

He failed.

Bill Clinton’s best efforts could not catch the Trump campaign, which hammered away relentlessly on key economic issues, including lost jobs, falling wages and outsourcing.

Hillary Clinton went on to lose in a big way to her Republican opponent. To the shock of politicos and media, Trump even emulated Bill Clinton’s success in the Rust Belt.

By early Wednesday morning, it became clear that the billionaire businessman was going to be the next president of the United States. Clinton conceded the election in a private phone call shortly after the Associated Press called Pennsylvania for Trump.

Hillary supporter Ed Rendell also tried to convince Hillary2016 and the Mook to speak to the white working class along with blacks and other groups of the Obama situation comedy. “We had the resources to do both. The campaign — and this was coming from Brooklyn — didn’t want to do it.”

At this too late date, years after we discussed over and over and over the futility of the Obama “coalition” the New York Times realizes it really was a “mistake in ’08” that led to the 2016 results and the Trump triumph:

The Democrats’ stunning defeat in the presidential race and continued struggles in lower-level contests have jolted party leaders into concluding that their emphasis on cultural issues has all but crippled them by diverting voters’ attention from the core Democratic message of economic fairness. [snip]

Over President Obama’s two terms, Democrats have embraced a down-the-line cultural liberalism that energized his coalition of millennials, minorities and college-educated whites. But the growing nationalization of politics and the Democrats’ drift to the left doomed a number of candidates running in more conservative states during the 2014 midterm elections, when turnout fell.

Yet despite their near-extinction in much of the South and in parts of the Great Plains — two regions that had for decades elected Democrats to statewide office — the party had little in the way of a debate about Mr. Obama’s approach.

Now, without rebuking the still-popular president directly, there is a growing recognition among many Democrats that Mr. Obama’s way may not be the best course in a country where many voters have experienced little income growth and where high-paying jobs can be scarce.

The election results of 2016 were birthed by the “Mistake In ’08“.

The cult of Obama produced 1.3 million fewer votes in 2012 and in 2016 5 million Obama voters took a hike and the bottom fell out. All our analysis starting in 2007 has been proven to be on target.

#Hillary2016 lost to Hillary2008. Enter Mark Penn, the pollster who was loyal to Hillary Clinton in 2008 and was dumped in favor of Obama acolyte Joel Benenson. Mark Penn laments 2016’s election results even as he sticks the knife into Hillary Clinton:

The Hillary Clinton of 2000 would have beaten Donald Trump

It was a sunny day on Daniel Moynihan’s farm in July 1999 when Hillary Clinton first launched her own political career and months later she would officially announce her candidacy for the U.S. Senate as a New Democrat. She extolled the values of “opportunity, community, responsibility and enterprise.”

In her announcement, Hillary backed a balanced budget, investments in education, welfare reform, tougher child support measures, more police and even teacher testing. She stressed the need for new jobs for New York and for continued economic progress.

She launched a campaign that was aimed at the largely Republican working class voters of upstate New York. It’s central promise was that no child should have to leave their hometown to find a good job.

She explained that the way to overcome the march of technology and globalization was to modernize the region for the 21st century. It was the kind of optimistic view of the future and the economy that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. [snip]

Looking back, she accomplished a reverse Trump. She courted and won Republican leaning working class voters in economically depressed areas of the state. She became their champion. [snip]

Now let’s fast forward to the Hillary of 2016. Gone were references to the basic values of a limited government. Gone were proposals for teacher testing and more cops. She apologized for her Iraq vote; her national security resume now relied on her sitting in the situation room during the raid on Osama bin Laden, hardly an act of political courage.

She opposed the very trade deals she negotiated, called in effect for single payer health care and made no bones about proposing to raise taxes $1.5 trillion. Confronted with a challenge from the left, she made her peace with them by agreeing to back the most “progressive” agenda in the democratic party’s history. Even President Clinton’s crime bill was thrown overboard.

Bernie Sanders was a tough opponent, but he was no Barack Obama. She could have defeated him without the fade to the left that brought cries of inauthenticity and underscored her weaknesses. Few believed she was against TPP and her shift leftward didn’t win her many of the caucuses she lost in 2008. [snip]

In the general election, she abandoned the vital center and instead ran as a continuation of President Obama, wrongly believing that the country wanted a third term. While some polling dubiously placed Obama’s approval rating as high as 55%, nearly every poll showed 60 to 70 per cent saying the country was headed in the wrong direction.

Her closing campaign picture in Philadelphia said it all — she stood together with President Clinton, President Obama and Hollywood stars. An entire closing weekend surrounded by Hollywood and the past. [snip]

By moving to the left, the Democratic Party has increasingly isolated itself and lost voters at all levels of government from the state houses to now the White House. The last time the party became this isolated, Bill Clinton ran as a “different kind of Democrat.”

At this point in our analysis we enter the final refuge of the infants. Shocked and surprised Hillary Clinton supporters unable to refute our analysis thus far take shelter in the Kindergarten of the blame game. Enter the Comey and Bernie excuses.

The Comey excuse made by the infants is that the FBI screwed Hillary. That is laughable. Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016, as Wikileaks demonstrates were all very aware of the problems with Hillary’s emails. A Google search brings up enough evidence about Cheryl Mills and the mess of the emails that proves Hillary2016 knew the emails were enough of a problem that perhaps Hillary should not have run for president. To us the final nail that buries this line of argument is that whatever the pros and cons, innocence or guilt of Hillary Clinton on the emails, the Hillary2016 campaign with thousands of employees and [b]millions of dollars failed to effectively respond to the email issue. The blame is not with the FBI nor Comey, the blame falls on the lumbering mess called Hillary2016.

Which brings us to Bernie Sanders. Sanders did Hillary Clinton a solid when he did not exploit the email issue. But that is not enough for Hillary2016’s gulled supporters shocked by the results of the election. They blame Bernie Sanders for moving Hillary too far to the left and other sins. The case against that Socialist old coot is made by Trump hater/Hillary apologist Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek:

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

Let’s stop right there. Did Hillary Clinton learn anything from 2008? No. Stupid. In 2008 Hillary avoided an attack to devastate Obama because she wanted to “avoid alienating his supporters”. In 2008 Obama supporters treated Obama “more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She learned nothing from 2008. The same exact problems from 2008 and the same stupidity from Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016.

We continue with Kurt Eichenwald’s stupid analysis:

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

Pardon the interruption, why didn’t Hillary2016 and Hillary Clinton denounce Bernie Sanders instead of mimicking him??? As in 2008, Hillary Clinton did not attack her idiot opponent, preferring to become a parrot. Again, Hillary Clinton stupidly did not learn a thing from 2008.

We continue with Kurt Eichenwald’s stupid analysis:

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

The idiot Kurt Eichenwald thinks he helps Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 with this drivel???? To our minds this defense is the ultimate condemnation!!!

If the Republicans had this opposition research book of horrors against Sanders WHY THE HELL DIDN’T HILLARY2016??? Why? We discussed and developed a strategy against Socialist Bernie which included questions about why he left Brooklyn for Vermont and those articles about women rape fantasies. Why didn’t Hillary2016 do what we suggested or develop a better strategy against the old coot. Because Hillary2016 was the dumbest, stupidest, campaign we have ever seen.


The campaign of Donald J. Trump? Brilliant. With less staff, less money, less organizational/institutional allies, more enemies in the form of the GOP establishment, European governments willing to surrender the West, the Dem Party, Big Media, Big Money, and Big Labor – Trump prevailed.

Hillary2016 was a muddled message mess, the stupidest, dumbest campaign ever, that deserved to lose.

From the very first day, Donald J. Trump spoke clear, concise, English. The voters, trapped in a snake pit, used Donald J. Trump as a stick to beat back the snakes. That’s why Donald J. Trump is President-elect Donald J. Trump. He deserved to win.