You’ll be as shocked as I am to learn it was because of Hillary:
The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her.
While the campaign projected a drama-free tenor, it was reminiscent of other moments of frustration.
Months earlier, Hillary Clinton turned her fury on her consultants and campaign aides, blaming them for a failure to focus the media on her platform.
In her ear the whole time, spurring her on to cast blame on others and never admit to anything, was her husband. Neither Clinton could accept the simple fact that Hillary had hamstrung her own campaign and dealt the most serious blow to her own presidential aspirations.
She is a corrupt incompetent hack, who no one would have ever heard of if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton.
I did not regard her as an incompetent hack. I regarded her as a kick-(backside) manager who was going to take no (stuff) from no body.
That was my concern — that she would initiate an all-out thermonuclear exchange over all the guff she had to take from men, and one man in particular, over the last 40 years.
In the end it was Hillary who decided to NOT campaign in several midwestern states (e.g. Wisconsin) and no one else. Not the Russians, Chinese, Amish or Ornamental Horticulturists.
She lost those states and others all by her very own self.
The thing about this, “She lost Wisconsin because she didn’t ‘campaign’ there” treats the voters of Wisconsin as having diminished intellectual capacity in making our decision.
That Ms. Clinton would have made more campaign experiences would have changed anyone’s mind? I suppose, but did we not know plenty about both candidates that one more round of TV commercials or one more political rally could have changed the outcome? Such says a lot about voters being sheep.
Do not underestimate the power of showing up.
Or, conversely, the power of ignoring voters.
Or the power of assumptions…she thought Wisconsin was in the bag.
Would someone admit that Ms Clinton lost Wisconsin because enough people in Wisconsin didn’t want a direct confrontation with Russia over a no-fly zone over Syria, that enough people in Wisconsin did want a direct confrontation with mayors of “sanctuary cities” harboring immigrants who had committed major crimes, that enough people in Wisconsin wanted at the very least, a reexamination of the various trade “deals”, that enough people in Wisconsin wanted the freedom to use hydrocarbon fuels, that enough people in Wisconsin did not want unfettered admission to the U.S. of persons from active conflict zones characterized by guerilla or terrorist tactics?