The Truth v. the Democrats

So now, it appears, the same people who cried that Donald Trump was trying (re the "birther" movement) to "de-legitimize our first black president", are doing the same thing back to Mr. Trump.

We had the first salvos of "that" this past week, courtesy of some program at Harvard University, which is, of course, the school that fancies itself  to be "the M.I.T. of the back end of Cambridge."  In that program, which generally follows election season, there is a post-mortem of the campaign, and in this one we were treated to some interesting interactions.

The chief episode was between Jennifer Palmieri, a mouthpiece for the failed Hillary Clinton campaign, and Kellyanne Conway, the campaign manager for the Trump campaign.  It went like this:

CONWAY: Excuse me, she said "white supremacist" ... Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform? Are you going to look me in the face and tell me that?
PALMIERI: It did. Kellyanne, it did.
CONWAY: Oh, that's how you lost?
PALMIERI: It did!
CONWAY: Do you think you could have just had a decent message for the white working class voters? Do you think this woman who has nothing in common with anybody --
PALMIERI: I'm not saying that's how you won but that's the campaign that was run, yes.
CONWAY: We flipped over 200 counties that President Obama won, and Donald Trump just won. You think that's because of what you said, or that people aren't ready for a woman president? Really? How [about] it's just Hillary Clinton? She doesn't connect with people. How about they have nothing in common with her? How about you had no economic message?

The point of all this is that the Democrats are now trying to de-legitimize the election of Donald Trump by claiming that he has the support of "white supremacists", who "had a platform."  In other words, candidates should be judged on, and their legitimacy derived from, not what they said or did but on who voted for them.  In this case, worse, it's who might have voted for them.

OK, that's what the Democrats are trying to do, but it's not the point.  The point is that the Democrats are completely removed from the reason that Hillary lost to Trump, and that there are simple mathematical facts that refute the Democrats before they even open their mouths.

Follow this: For the argument that "white supremacists had a platform in the Trump campaign", and that's why he won, the Clintonistas suggest that the election was turned on who did vote for him.  But the numbers, ah, the numbers, well, they tell a different story.  In fact, the whole election turned on who didn't vote, and that's our story.

Numbers don't lie.  Donald Trump ran a campaign that was actually a bit unsuccessful at attracting voters to the polls.  Believe me?  Trump tallied only about a million and a half more votes than Mitt Romney had in 2012.  In most cycles, that would be thought of as unsuccessful, especially given that Romney lost.

The story is actually that, as I write this, 65,240,114 people voted for Hillary Clinton.  That sounds like a lot, and the Democrats are screaming about how she got two million more votes than Trump did (Trump out-polled her total in the 49 states other than California, where neither candidate campaigned and where she won by 4,180,000).

Only one problem there -- Hillary's vote count was about 700,000 votes fewer than Obama pulled in 2012, meaning that she essentially failed in making the case to the American voter that she should be president.  It wasn't who voted for Trump; it was who did not vote for Hillary.  That has nothing to do with the Trump voter; it had everything to do with Hillary and the Hillary campaign.

Jen Palmieri and Joy Behar and other Democrat apologists can holler about the "basket of deplorables" all they want, but it really was not about Trump at all -- if Hillary couldn't even draw as many voters as Obama had four years earlier, well, she has only herself and her team to blame.

"How [about] it's just Hillary Clinton? She doesn't connect with people. How about they have nothing in common with her? How about you had no economic message?"

Those are the words of Donald Trump's campaign manager to a senior member of the Hillary campaign last week.  The Clintonistas and the rest of the Democrats -- and the press, if they intend to be the same shills next election that they were this one -- would be wise to figure out that it wasn't any bogus "white supremacists" that cost them the 2016 election -- it was their campaign and their entitled, corrupt candidate.

But they'll never learn.  Thank God.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.