Home | About | Donate

Why Hillary Clinton Really Lost


Why Hillary Clinton Really Lost

Robert Parry

An early insider account of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, entitled Shattered, reveals a paranoid presidential candidate who couldn’t articulate why she wanted to be President and who oversaw an overconfident and dysfunctional operation that failed to project a positive message or appeal to key voting groups.


"the petty bickering, foolish reasoning and sheer arrogance of a campaign that was never the sure thing that its leader and top staffers assumed"
If anything I think that Mr. Allen and Ms. Parnes must be being overly polite. But it is good of them to try and help the Democratic party establishment to get it.


...that, and the other reason why Hillary Clinton Really Lost is that Bernie Sanders wasn't the candidate picked by the party apparatchik.


I notice that while people discuss the DNC and Dem leadership torpedoing Bernie's campaign ( a lack of respect for true democracy which the Dems should rot in hell over! ) , very few mention the resentment factor that was generated by what the DNC did to Bernie. Progressives especially saw the Dems as betrayers and Hillary being forced on voters who clearly had preferred Bernie.

The Dems would do well to mend those tears in the fabric of their party worthiness in voters who were shocked and dismayed that the Dems abandoned a sure win candidate who enjoyed great popularity and instead attempted to foist a noticeably unpopular old guard candidate on them. The Dems talk about being for the 99% but their behavior during the last election has caused them to lose far more than just the election!

If Bernie runs again next time around, the whole country knows that he would win in a landslide. He would have won this last election in a landslide but the Dems sabotaged him... and as a result, the Dems sabotaged themselves with the voters.


Bottom line: who cares? Good riddance.


Russia, Russia, Russia, but Parry, you seem to forget that Comey went on and on in a completely unprecedented way in vilifying Hillary. Comey made it sound like he was only an eyelash away from insisting that Hillary be burned at the stake.


Hillary lost because bernie should have been the candidate the d. estab. supported. I, and many other FORMER democrats would have rejoined the party


The Clinton and Bush dynasties can't disappear too quickly.


... and they won't .


America it's them bad Russians.
Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.
The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia's power mad. She wants to take our cars from out our garages.


I always thought Parry was too much of a Russia (Putin) apologist, but he is right on this one. Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate without a message other than "I deserve to be President". I was reading a rather haliographic biography on the Clintons from the 90's a while back and it talked about how, when Bill Clinton didn't want to run for Governor again in 1982, Hillary decided that she would be Governor of Arkansas. So...the Clintons did a lot of polling and found her support was 3%.....they were shocked and furious. Go figure.


Hillary Clinton lost because the press failed in their responsibility to inform and educate the public about the candidates. All of the details that people cite are the precise examples of how the press failed the American electorate. All of those "headline grabbing leads" demonstrate that the press has been compromised by the very same ratings-driven and self-indulgent narcissist tendencies as Trump.

The press normalized the choice between a flawed Clinton and a flawed Trump - as if they were somehow similar in degree and scope - when nothing could be further from the truth.

Clinton lost because the press was busy chasing ratings, soundbites and lead stories.

If you really want to understand what happened read the detailed articles by Thomas E. Patterson,
Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Harvard University Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. (Since I can't put link - search Google with the following: "news coverage of the 2017 election shorenstein center")


Here's a link to a new reuters story: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-putin-linked-think-tank-drew-up-plan-to-sway-2016-us-election-documents/ar-BBA3q8F?ocid=spartanntp


She did have another message: "I'm not him" (pointing to Trump).


This is what I believe happened adding that after the country found out that the primary was being rigged against Bernie they either didn't come out or voted against her.
As far as Russia is concerned, I never thought they skewed the election. What I'm very mad about is that no one, including Clinton, called Trump out on his ties to corruption, money laundering suspicions and deals with Russian and American mafia types?
Has Trump got something on Clinton? Because she could have used that to win. Why was it not commonly known that he built his fortune on Russian money? Why didn't the Democrats scream it everywhere? Somethings not right about that picture.


Wait a minute. No one has mentioned the fact that she would have been the first woman president. If it had been a man running against Trump would he have won? My guess would be yes. I am not at all suggesting that a woman shouldn't be President but I would suggest that she lost where he wouldn't have.


Analytics say that running plays for J.J. Reddick will make your offense more efficient. The naked eye says that Blake Griffin needs to up his average about 15 points and J.J. needs to give him more space in the corner.

The Goldwater Girl trusted analytics, because she has no conviction.


That's it, I'm done. This site is worthless at this point.

Few were talking about Russia before the election. It wasn't a big deal, though it should have been.

Perhaps Parry just lies as a matter of course now, God knows he gave up journalism years and years ago, but Clinton was winning until Comey's memo got "leaked" (and you should remember who did that). Parry ignores Comey entirely, because that REALITY wouldn't fit in with the story he's selling and the one CD is peddling, as well. Congratulations, CD, you've jumped the shark. You've decided to pretend certain facts just don't exist to appeal to an increasingly embarrassing readership. When are you going to break down and start publishing "truther" garbage? We all know it's coming.

So long, folks. This site is now just a waste of time. Enjoy your worthless echo chamber. CD will keep feeding you the lies you want as long as you keep feeding it the checks it wants. No corporate advertising doesn't actually mean good journalism, but the people here aren't really bright enough to know they're being played.


I do hope we've seen the last of candidate Clinton - ANY CLINTON. Hillary was lackluster at best. She only moved left on issues when pushed by Senator Sanders. The DNC's corruption of the primary against Sanders forced me to leave the Democratic Party, and become Independent. They've become a 'right of center' organization, essentially abandoning the voting bloc of Americans who've depended upon a forward, rational dedication to the 'greater good' in governing. The GOP is only a hideous amoral cult, still relevant only from expert attacks on voting rights and gerrymandered districts, even Bush appointed federal judges site as going too far.
I will send a letter to Perez, voicing my utter disdain for what the Democrats have become. He needs to hear our anger in any manner we can put before him. Everything worthwhile depends upon the effort of the American people to retake and rebuild our representative government.


Is this the link you wanted to leave?