It's Russian hackers, FBI and Wikileaks wot won it – Hillary Clinton on her devastating election loss

Hillary Clinton today gave her first full interview since dramatically losing the US presidential election – and has placed the blame for her downfall on Russian hackers, FBI director James Comey and Wikileaks. "If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president," Clinton told CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour at a …

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress if there was any material change in the Clinton email situation. And as noted, there was thanks to Wiener having approximately 20,000 Clinton emails on the laptop he & his wife both used. Clinton can finger point all she wants, but the entire email fiasco was of her own making. Had she not used her "private server" for Government business, there would have been no FBI investigation at all.

(And no, I am not a Trump supporter.)

[MD Rackham]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

There was no "email fiasco" except in the minds of low-information voters.

She handled email the same way as her predecessors. Sorry if you fell for the Republican con.

Really, really sorry if you fell for the Bernie con (which Clinton diplomatically didn't mention as another reason for her loss).

[GrumpyKiwi]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

She was found to have been "extremely careless with classified information". Which is code speak for "if anyone else had done it they'd be in jail".

As I may have mentioned in another thread on this, I previously worked on British MoD email servers, had TS clearance and was subject to the Official Secrets Act. If I'd done even 50% of what was done with her email I'd still be in jail being traded for a handful of cigarettes (on account of being so pretty).

[mike360]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

SOLD! To the man in the braids.

[John H Woods]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

"... and was subject to the Official Secrets Act"

Pedantic note

EVERYONE is subject to the OSA, it's a law not a contract... signing it makes no legal difference whatsoever. It is customary to sign it when performing work where it is more relevant, but this is a reminder of its terms, not a voluntary acceptance of them.

[handleoclast]

Re: Pedantic note

True, we are all subject to the OSA. But only a handful of people have ever signed the OSA. Some, perhaps many, of the commentards here will have signed a piece of paper acknowledging that they have been acquainted with the OSA, its purposes and the penalties for breaching it. Only monarchs get to sign the act itself, when it is passed into law.

[Ninja Wabbit]

Re: Pedantic note

How many fingers do you have on your hands?!? o.O

[cirby]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Her predecessors handled email much, much differently than she did, in many ways.

Most obvious is that they didn't send classified information through their non-government email. Some staffers sent some very low-level information to Rice, but were corrected immediately. Clinton actively encouraged her staff to bypass classification, according to her own emails.

Less obvious is that, when Powell and Rice did it, they still used their government accounts for the bulk of their work, with very few used through their other accounts. Clinton completely relied on her private server for all of her work emails.

Clinton also lied flat-out about it, from first claiming that the server didn't exist, to claiming that it was only one unsecured email device - when it turned out to be over a dozen, some of which were lost, and others destroyed AFTER the investigation found out about them. That sort of action would land you in jail if you tried something similar when dealing with evidence in a government investigation...

The last part - and the part you managed to miss - is that between the time Colin Powell and Condi Rice held office and the time Hillary and the Democrats took over, the law changed, making it illegal to use private email servers. Hillary knew this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

10 upvotes from me

[Jaybus]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Turns out she made a good choice to use a private email server. What would have happened if the FBI had also gotten the 30k deleted messages?

[Lord_Beavis]

@MD Rackham Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Your low-information voters were the ones that voted for this twat knowing she is a crook and a liar.

[Blank Reg]

Re: @MD Rackham Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Years of investigations, 100's of millions of dollars wasted and they couldn't pin a single thing on her.

Either she's innocent, a criminal mastermind, or the Republicans are incompetent beyond belief

No matter which it was, she would still make a better president than the insanely corrupt clowns currently running the circus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @MD Rackham Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

Untrue, for whatever reason she's been given "untouchable" status. Comey found that she was in breach of the law but claimed that she lacked "intent", something not required under the law, all that is required is negligence which indeed she displayed. Why did Comey not recommend prosecution - probably didn't want to do so at that stage of a presidential campaign which I guess one can understand.

But the other charges, don't know why the DOJ isn't now investigating them; I would have empaneled a grand jury but perhaps they thought it would look particularly mean spirited post election ? <shrug>

And something else just revealed, virtually all emails send via the Clintonmail server to Huma Abedin (who did have a security clearance) were forwarded immediately to Anthony Weiner's account (and he DIDN'T have clearance) so he could print them out for Huma to take to Hillary. That is yet another blatant breach of security given the highly sensitive nature of some of those eMails. Weiner is not the sort of person you would want with access to such material, probably post some of it tucked into his "bulging" boxers in a message to some teenager.

Still think she should be properly investigated and charged if a proper independent review (aka Grand Jury) so recommends.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

I'm afraid that the "low information voters" are those like you who swallowed the Clintonista spin hook, line, and sinker.

1. She stored secret including highly restricted compartmentalized data on that server, which is strictly illegal - FBI investigation confirmed that;

2. She committed perjury before a Federal judge by stating under oath that she had released all emails subject to a FOI request. The FBI investigation (which wasn't on this point) revealed that over 30,000 emails were deleted and of those few recovered most were relevant to the FOI, perjury is serious - that's what got her husband impeached after all;

3. She (or those under her direct control) also are guilty of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. She/They received a subpoena for the email records on 3 March 2016 and the bulk of the emails were deleted on or about 25 March 2016.

All three are serious crimes and if committed by anyone else (other than another highly connected politician) would have seen her charged , convicted, and imprisoned potentially for a lengthy stretch. She's still out walking around (sort of) which is a travesty of justice.

[Eduard Coli]

Re: Comey was required by Congress to inform Congress

What is sad is that you believe that. If nothing was out of the ordinary in the way Hillary was using out of band communication even for classified information why did she feel the need to lie about it? First there was no mail server, then there was but it was decommissioned and erased, then it was in use but no classified stuff so on a so forth.

[Grifter]

Not entirely correct.

"But the truth is, dodgy email security aside, Clinton didn't win because not enough of America liked her or wanted her to be their commander in chief. ®"

Incorrect statement, see popular/electoral.

[diodesign]

Re: Not entirely correct.

Sadly correct. Winning the popular vote doesn't mean much - see Al Gore.

C.

[Grifter]

Re: Not entirely correct.

The validity of the outcome of the popular vote isn't the point. The article could change to say that 'not enough of america's electoral college wanted'. But to suggest that not enough people wanted her to be president, when more people voted for than against, continues to be incorrect.

[100113.1537]

Re: Not entirely correct.

The article states it absolutely correctly. Not enough means not enough - it doesn't mean more than anyone else or less than them - it was quite clearly not enough to win the states that she needed to to win the Electoral College vote. This isn't hard to understand - given that it is the way US elections have been run for, oh let's see, 200 years.

The fact that without California, the popular vote also fell for Trump (albeit very narrowly) goes to show why the Electoral College system was put in place - to prevent one (or two) large states having undue influence over the outcome of the election.

[Chris Miller]

@00113.1537

And there was a Libertarian candidate who polled 4 million votes (absent which I imagine most would have gone to Trump). If you're going to have direct presidential elections, you either need a run-off system (à la France) or a transferable vote - otherwise you run the risk of the election outcome being decided by which third party candidates decide to stand. Had either of these been in place, Trump would probably still have won, though turnout might well have been different (there's little incentive for a Trump voter in California under the Electoral College system).

[Jaybus]

Re: Not entirely correct.

Furthermore, take a look at the Presidential election map by county or voting precinct, where precincts that were won by Trump are in red and those won by Clinton in blue. The much greater detail shows that Clinton won large metropolitan areas and Trump won nearly all of the rest. At the time it was put in place, the worry was that the large cities, at the time Philadelphia and New York, would have undue influence over the election. Judging by the finer detailed election maps, they were correct in their assessment, and the 2016 election shows that the electoral college system is still working as expected.

[TReko]

Re: Not entirely correct.

Or Nixon in 1960, who lost to Kennedy

[JCitizen]

Re: Not entirely correct.

Looking at the popular vote for one candidate ignores the other part of the population.

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/sunday-morning-sociology-first-edition/

We are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy - a democracy votes the majority so the larger crowd can beat up on the smaller - that is not how it works in the US. That is how the Romans did it - we are not the Romans either, although our fiscal policy will surely defeat us in similar manner.

[GrumpyKiwi]

Re: Not entirely correct.

Buzz: Wrong!

The "Popular" vote was for "None of these bozos" which over 80 million eligible American voters went for and didn't vote at all. Next on the list was "anyone but Clinton*". At best she got third.

* Taken as when you position yourself and the chosen one, she who has been anointed and so forth, everyone who votes otherwise clearly is against you regardless of whether they went for Trump, Johnson, Stein or others.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not entirely correct.

The popular vote vs electoral college is a red herring. The states elect the president. Each state makes its decision via universal suffrage today, but in the past their electors were appointed or were elected by other means. Each state then casts its votes based on which candidate wins the majority in that state. This system was chosen deliberately, to prevent a small number of populous states from dominating the union.

The USA is not a unitary state, but a confederation of states, each of which appoints its representatives to the federal government by whatever means they choose. The president is elected by the states. Keep that in mind in future and it will all make sense.

[tom dial]

Re: Not entirely correct.

States choose electors as provided by their respective constitutions and laws. Maine and Nebraska elect two based on the state total and one in each congressional district. Accordingly, in Maine, Clinton got 3 electoral votes, and Trump one. Nebraska's three district and two at large electors all went to Trump, but it could have come out otherwise.

A number of misguided states have entered into a compact whereby they will, by law, assign all their electors to the winner of a plurality of the national popular vote. The compact will take effect if joined by states having a total of more than 273 electoral votes Some people do not think this is a good idea, but there is little doubt that it is legal.. It has been approved by law in 10 states and the District of Columbia, with a combined total of 165 electoral votes; all of them, for the present, return a Democratic majority fairly reliably. My suspicion is that it would not long survive the first election similar to that of 2016 that was carried based on very large majorities in a fairly small number of states.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not entirely correct.

The compact looks like it is mostly only going to pass in the large states it would benefit the most and those that heavily lean democrate and suspect it will help in national elections. Likely most Republican controlled states the proposition will die in committees. That the Democrats did worse in most state government elections this time make it less likely to pass than previous efforts that failed.

[streaky]

Re: Not entirely correct.

It's worse than that, the voter's view of Clinton is formed by the picture that was painted. Plus yeah hey she got more votes regardless. The key point here is a picture was painted, so yeah voter distrust. If voters chose to believe some of the things that were said part of me says you get what you deserve versus the guy that won't even show you if he paid any tax last year.

[tom dial]

Re: Not entirely correct.

It is interesting to look at maps showing the election results. A number of them are at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

A total of four non coastal states went for Clinton. Four of the 21 (including DC) where she received a majority or plurality of the popular vote. The often mentioned popular vote majority was smaller than her margin in California alone, or the four adjacent states of New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. A look at the county level map shows her support even more narrowly clustered near the big waters or boundaries.

[Jaybus]

Re: Not entirely correct.

"A look at the county level map shows her support even more narrowly clustered near the big waters or boundaries."

Well, it is the large metro areas that she won. The large cities are, understandably, clustered near the big waters.

[Gene Cash]

"Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

BINGO. And that right there in a nutshell is the best explanation for the Trump presidency I've seen.

Trump sucks asteroids through a millipore filter... but Clinton would have been worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

voting for someone vs. voting against someone

> "Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

Yes. The Goldman Sachs & Friends bubble to be exact.

Let's not forget Obama's economic policy failures for the eight years he was in office, and while he was de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Obama got elected to a second term at the expense of the destruction of the Democratic Party. Lying about the real-life provisions of Obamacare, and his stubborn opposition to a single-payer health insurance system didn't help much either.

Hillary Clinton was unelectable from the outset IMO. Her campaign did indeed ignore states like WI, MI and PA, but it's not clear what the 20+ years champion of neo-liberal economic policies - read: outsourcing, globalization, free-trade agreements and wage-suppressing policies - could have done to tilt the electoral balance in her favor, in these states.

Her campaign waged her win on (a) she's Hillary Clinton, and she is destined to win and (b) Trump is worse, so they will vote for her anyway. Didn't turn out that way. People need reasons to vote for someone. Betting a win on people voting against the other one is unpredictable. It also shows that the candidate either has no policy ideas of her own, or that she is deliberately trying to get elected without articulating any policy position that she would be beholden to.

She can blame Putin, James Comey, misogyny, prejudice, etc. all she wants. If you look at the voting patterns during the 2016 election, a lot of voters who voted twice for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. Enough to tilt the electoral college in Trump's favor. Those who voted twice for a black president in 2008 and 2012 are now suddenly misogynistic, prejudiced and racist?

In the end, she lost the election to a television show clown with Cheeto-colored hair because she had nothing to offer, except arrogance, lies and a toxic sense of self-entitlement to the presidency.

The fact that she needed an electoral college win, and not a popular vote win should have been known to her campaign before the election.

I am not, and have never been a Trump supporter. Registered Democrat my entire voting life. And I am dismayed and saddened at the current state of the US Democratic Party, such as it was driven into near-extinction by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Does anyone know what the US Democratic Party stands for, these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: voting for someone vs. voting against someone

"Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years. When you are paid over $200,000 just to give a speech, you have no meaningful connection to 99.9 per cent of voters."

It's not just the Clintons. It's not even just the USA. It applies to Westminster (England) poliitics too (NI, Scotland, Wales seem to have slightly different rules).

"Does anyone know what the US Democratic Party stands for, these days?"

Does anyone know what any ambitious long term politician and/or largely corporate-funded political organisation really stands for these days ?

"The Goldman Sachs & Friends bubble to be exact."

BINGO!!!!

Not just Westminster then (see above), Westminster and the City. Though frequently it's hard to see the difference.

This map covers Europe in 2011:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

The picture hadn't changed much in subsequent years. The names in the frame may be about to change, voters having finally got fed up with being lied to by Head Office politicians and their chums, but will any control actually have changed hands?

[Lord_Beavis]

@Gene Cash

""Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

BINGO. And that right there in a nutshell is the best explanation for the Trump presidency I've seen."

That got you a +1

"Trump sucks asteroids through a millipore filter... but Clinton would have been worse."

That got you a -0.5 so I'll just round it up to -1.

[Swarthy]

Re: @Gene Cash (@ Lord Beavis)

You should double check your math.

0+1+(-0.5)=0.5, which rounds to +1, at a minimum it floors to 0.

[tedleaf]

Sounds just like almost every loser at almost anything in recent history,blame anyone or anything else,except the fact that you yourself caused the failure.

Arrogance and stupidity caused her to fail,thankfully,trump maybe be awful,I suspect Clinton would have been even worse for America and realy bad for those of us outside the USA,I.e,the vast majority of the world's population..

[Anonymous Coward]

Least disliked

Somehow the USA's 2 main ( only?) parties managed to select intensely disliked/hated candidates. As I read it Clinton managed to scrape a small majority of the popular votes and perhaps could have got more in the electoral college on a level playing field.

Trump won that one. But ultimately it was a battle of the deeply mistrusted who might have been horrific versus the horrific but perceived as honest ( for any given value of honest). And it does seem to be a problem that extends beyond the USA. I won't vote for Corbyn's bunch, having voted Labour all my life - I actually left the Labour Party in the 70s when Militant took over, but still supported them. But won't be voting May. So I guess it's the no-hope LibDems for me ( sigh). The French have a choice of Macron the supposed outsider who isn't really, or Le Pen.

AC because They might be reading this. :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Least disliked

Clinton only gained the nomination by electoral fraud in the democratic primary, something that is consistently ignored by all the media coverage of her failed candidacy. If there had been a truly level playing field there, Sanders would have been the democratic candidate, and probably would have been president as well. Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would have swung heavily in Sanders favor.

[Captain DaFt]

Re: Least disliked

"Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would have swung heavily in Sanders favor."

One wag I drink with put forth the notion that if the Democrats had put anyone besides Hillary up for nomination, they'd be president today.

Even, he claims, if it was a Labrador retriever or a Tabby cat.

I'm not sure he isn't correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Least disliked

The belief that Bernie would have easily defeated Don is just that, a belief. I would suggest that under the glare of presidential campaigning his rather extreme views and his interesting past would have been a serious drag, at the very least.

[Blank Reg]

Re: Least disliked

His "extreme views" are only extreme by wacky right wing American standards. In the rest of the world he's a centrist, or slightly left of center at best. What you call extreme views are just common sense, something obviously not so common amongst US voters.

[tom dial]

Re: Least disliked

While I am inclined to agree that Sanders would have had a better chance than Clinton against Trump, it was not in the cards for him to win the Democratic party nomination, and not alone because of sharp dealing within the party organization. For starters, he was not a Democrat until he decided to run, and was. Second, Clinton, had been running for years and had a well-oiled organization, as well as Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the superdelegates. Sanders was a late entry and had much less in the way of an organization. Either one of those can be offset to a degree by supporters' enthusiasm, but in combination they are almost sure to be fatal.

I am not a Democrat, but Sanders probably* would have got my vote over Trump. He is an experienced politician (in some ways more so than Clinton), and I judge him to be decent and honest. I doubt he would have had much success in getting his program through the Congress, any more than Trump or Clinton, but I do not think he would have treated us to the shenanigans of either of them.

* There were other candidates.

[Peter2]

Re: Least disliked

As a Brit with no horse in the race, the Democrat party in the USA appears to be appealing to the young idealistic types. I think most of these people were supporting Saunders.

It then comes to light just before the election that Clinton rather corruptly rigged the DNC selection in her favour and then expected the Bernie Saunders supporters to vote for her, even after this was revealed.

My feeling is that a fair number of young idealistic Bernie Saunders supporters would have simply stayed at home on election night instead of voting.

Clinton loses the election, blames various sources for revealing her being corrupt.

So is the problem:-

1) Clinton being corrupt.

2) It being revealed that Clinton is corrupt.

I suppose you could argue that either way.

[disgruntled yank]

Re: Least disliked

"For starters, he was not a Democrat until he decided to run, and was."

Such is not without precedent. Wendell Wilkie was a Democrat until shortly before the Republican Convention of 1940. He lost, but is worth remembering for the remark of one of his home-state senators there: "You know, Wendell, back home in Indiana it's OK if the town whore wants to come to church, but we don't let her lead the choir her first Sunday back."

[pavel.petrman]

Re: Polls all suggested that Sanders v Trump would

Of course they did. Sanders had a very capable team of persuators behind him (with Cialdini among them), who togetherat least amounted, if not suprassed the persuasive power of Trump. By the looks of it Clinton's team was built to lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Least disliked

because NO ONE WANTED TO WIN

the local, national and geopolitical fallout of over a decade of even greater policy failures guaranteed some serious nastiness happening in the next term.

Remember that the GOP "Establishment" did NOT want Trump either. They wanted one of their boring, *guaranteed to lose* entries like Cruz. The Dems put Clinton KNOWING she'd fail, and thats why their own emails proved them doing everything they could to sabotage Sanders, who, regardless of whether or not his promises were doable, was a hell of a lot more likeable and electable than Clinton. So he had to go.

Trump upset the apple cart and also managed to take the Presidency. All the while playing both the Perfect GOP Villain and the Ultimate Scapegoat so well it almost seems like his early Hollywood alliances and previous DNC contributions make us wonder which Party he's really working for. Now everything can and will be conveniently blamed on Trump and the GOP and guarantee the Dems will take Congress in the Midterms where the REAL power lies.

Played correctly, the propaganda memes will allow the Dems to take the Presidency and hold it as well.

Machiavelli is not unknown in DC.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Least disliked

"So I guess it's the no-hope LibDems for me ( sigh)"

As we've seen since the Tories won outright, the LibDems did a decent job of keeping the Tories reined in during the coalition. It's a shame their fairweather supporters couldn't see that. Sadly, my local constituency is a ultra-safe Labour seat. The locals would vote for a stuffed teddy if it wore a red rosette.

[JimC]

Re: The locals would vote for a stuffed teddy if it wore a red rosette.

And judging by the way they stick to the party line, most MPs (of all sides) could be replaced by a stuffed teddy with little change to the business of government...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are paid over $200,000

More interesting by whom. How many of these speech payments were by "interesting people". The list of her speaking engagements and the list of donors of the Clinton foundation makes a phenomenally interesting reading (especially when you compare it versus her policy positions). Blair is not far behind too.

Corruption the 21st century developed world way - everything above board and for everything you get an invoice for "speaking" or "consulting".

[Anonymous Coward]

Being caught cheating in two debates probably didn't help her campaign much.

In general the Right doesn't win half as much as the Left loses. It's a situation that people need to address.

[a_yank_lurker]

Real Reason

Hildafelon lost because of incompetence on her part and those she hired. The Presidential race is one to see who will win the most electoral votes which means who will win states. Total national votes does not matter. It has been this way say Washington which is well before she was born. Knowing that a smart candidate would in her case ignore the left coast and solidly blue states like NY and NJ. She should have made sure she ran hard in the swing states which she ignored. This points to a serious lack of competence on her part. Incompetence as a candidate is not a good sign for competence as the President.

Another issue is many dislike to despise the both her and her sidekick the 'Rapist in Chief' (Bill has been accused of rape by numerous women) because of their general sleaziness for the last 25+ years. Many held their noses and voted for Blowhard because the thought of 4 more years of the Clintons made them vomit.

[tom dial]

Re: Real Reason

William Jefferson Clinton is an extremely accomplished electoral politician. If she had listened to him, and more importantly insisted that her general election campaign management do so, she probably would be President now.

Another issue can be found in her State Department tenure, particularly in the email fiasco. Setting up that illicit server demonstrated that she elevated her personal goals above her sworn duty, and that she disrespected both her boss, the sitting president, and her pemanent foreign service and civil service subordinates: the president, in that she knowingly violated department and government wide regulations, and her subordinates by enforcing on them conduct she failed to observe herself and, worse, by compelling them to evade those same regulations in order to communicate with her by email. Beside those things, it is not completely unreasonable to think carelessness with a small amount of classified material, as bad as that is, might be less consequential in judging whether she should be elected.

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: Real Reason

Slick Willie is a brilliant campaigner and understood that winning the Presidential election means winning states first. His suggestions were ignored. He assumed Blowhard could win the election if a few states flipped but the children running the campaign refused to listen. His analysis is generally true of most Presidential elections; flip the right 3 - 5 purple states and you have different President. If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee in 2000 he would have been President. The children were enamored with their computer models that said Blowhard had no chance; models that were obviously wrong.

[Firmsec]

So what, central America was dealt the same hand.

The United States direct and indirectly overthrew multiple governments using mercenary forces and people all just remember that Oliver North was a good looking soldier. The Electoral College is to blame. Without reform of the number of votes each state has according to its population, the American dream of fair elections is gamed and thus dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what, central America was dealt the same hand.

Hillary? Is that you...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is having trouble "getting it"

If she had been smart or more forthcoming about the email, it wouldn't have been an issue. But frankly, when you run your own private email server and then delete 30K emails off of it because "Trust me, they had nothing to do with public business", it just doesn't look good. That, plus the Clinton history of skirting legality right up to the definition of what "is" means--that just puts you at the mercy of someone getting some other info coming to light right before election day, and re-opening the investigation. The net is that if Hillary had been smart and more ethical, she could have taken the email issue off the table.

That plus campaign strategy, like spending more media and event money (unsuccessfully) trying to win the single electoral vote for carrying the ballot in Omaha, Nebraska than was spent in all of Wisconsin and Michigan. (For you non-Americans, Nebraska is one of the couple of states where the electoral vote created by the presence of a congressional district is doled out to the winner of that particular district, so you can lose the state but still pick up 1-2 electoral votes. I guess the prospect of carrying Omaha was REALLY important to Hillary.) Hillary then went on to lose Michigan and all its 16 electoral votes (Michigan is a traditional American "winner takes all" state when it comes to electoral votes) by a margin of 13,000 out of the 4.5 million presidential ballots cast in-state. Oops.

But hey, I can understand that it is easier to blame James Comey and Vladimir Putin than admit to your own bone-headedness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hillary is having trouble "getting it"

If she had come clean at once, that would have most likely scuttled her chance at the Democrat Party nomination. Bernie was breathing down her neck at the time the email scandal was first reaching the public's consciousness.

As it was, she had to pull secret DNC strings just to defeat Bernie at all, and that dirty trick kept a lot of young voters home and insured her defeat.

[Jos V]

Re: Hillary is having trouble "getting it"

Well, at least she was insured then I suppose :-p

[Anonymous Coward]

America had a choice between two very unlike able candidates.

The email fiasco pushed people over the edge. If a candidate can't be trusted with top secret information, that disqualifies them from being president. I did find Comey's timing suspicious and political. But, for a politically appointed office I suppose that's not a surprise...

I was rooting for Sanders because, even though I disagreed with much of his philosophy, he was the only trustworthy candidate that had a chance.

Johnson was my preferred candidate but he never had a chance...

[tom dial]

I doubt that more than 5% of the population understood the difference between an email server and an email account, or that her bad behavior with respect to that really affected the election outcome. It had no effect on those who already had made up their minds one way or the other and neither did Comey's letters; indeed, his news conference when declining to prosecute over it seems to have had no lasting effect. As for the undecided voters, it probably had no real effect on them either; nearly all would have been leaning one way and ignoring it or the other and also ignoring it. In fact, nearly everyone had fully incorporated it before the conventions, just as they had decided to tolerate Donald Trump despite his shortcomings or reject him because of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sour grapes

Those things contributed to her loss, sure, but she could have overcome them easily over a weak candidate with huge unfavorables like Trump if she:

1) didn't act like she was owed the presidency just because she's been a good soldier for the democratic party

2) actually articulated some plans to help the people who Bernie and Trump were talking to about jobs, or heck just acknowledged them in any way

Had she done those things, then the email stuff, the fake news, the Russians would have merely reduced her margin, she still would have won without breaking much of a sweat. Based on exit polling, around 8 million people who voted for Obama voted for Trump. That's a massive loss considering that Obama had approval ratings over 50% during the whole election cycle - it shouldn't have been that hard for her to sell people on going for four more years of Obama. Those 8 million are open minded independents or even democrats who she could have kept with a better campaign. She only needed to keep a total of 50,000 of them from flipping in three states to win!

In the end, it seems like her whole message was "I'm not Trump" which is fine for the democratic base, but hardly enough to win over independents. If she would have said "I'm not Trump" and presented plans and showed why they will help average people and not just the 1% she spent too much time around she would have won. Which is ironic, because so far what little Trump has accomplished has been about helping the 1% and not the blue collar voters who put him in the White House.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sour grapes

DS, the "Russians" thing is a fiction, and the fake news was almost entirely to HER benefit, not Trump's.

The corrupt and discredited mainstream press only recently started to claim the right's fake news was a big factor, to distract from their own abject failure to shove Hillary over the finish line via massive arse kissing and wagon-circling. It took several months of email scandal before they were dragged (kicking and screaming) to even acknowledge the scandal, let alone report on it honestly, which they never did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sour grapes

Nice try, but facts seem to elude you, Little Johnny Douchebag. Saying something is "fake news" is the sign of an out-of-touch idiot without a proper position to hold. Clinton lost. Big deal. It's over. The CIA/FBI told us what happened, yet you can't be bothered with facts, right? Also, why is it that you only come by when the word Trump is in your search results and never for any other thread? Obsessed much?

Now that your corporate pal and conspiracy idiot with a Furby toupee is in the Oval Office, why is it that even with majority control from the Grab Our Pussies party in the house and senate, he can't get a single item passed? Failure. Get used to the smell. It's still happening. Same thing with your pal Chairman Pai... his grand plan to repackage old news to better his personal brand, while making morons like you cheer for their lost privacy, is not looking like it's going anywhere but the toilet. Yeah, your tea party is really great at doing nothing. All talk, no walk. That's The Republican Way! Still thinking there are only two parties in the US that are viable? Good boy, sit up and wag your tail at the mainstream media like a good doggy! You obey well! Keep barking at the "liberal threat" that your masters tell you to be mad at. :P Never you mind your pretty little head about that nasty plutocracy. That's nonsense!

You are not that smart. You must be a Windows-only admin. Click click. Grin grin. Say no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sour grapes

> "...Little Johnny Douchebag"

FINALLY, a real live Trump hater arrives on the thread! (I wondered they all were)

I suppose you guys zero-in on the name "Trump" in the article title, and that cue was lacking in the present case. Sure was nice not to have children screwing up the mature discussion for once.

[disgruntled yank]

Re: Sour grapes

Trump hater? Donnie, is that you? We thought you only called the tabloids under assumed names.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC - Re: Sour grapes

The CIA/FBI told us what happened. Yeah, two organizations with a long standing reputation of honesty and transparency. If let's say Russian SVR would say something there will be all lies. I love this black and white movie!

[Captain DaFt]

Re: Sour grapes

"or heck just acknowledged them in any way"

Acknowledging them was the main reason she lost.

You can't go calling a large chunk of potential voters "racist", bigoted", and "ignorant" because they want real answers to real questions that seriously affect them, and then expect them to vote for you.

So they voted for the one that called them "True Americans", even if he offered imbecilic platitudes and sound bites instead of answers.

[The Nazz]

Re: Sour grapes

"You can't go calling a large chunk of potential voters "racist", bigoted", and "ignorant" because they want real answers to real questions that seriously affect them, and then expect them to vote for you."

Clinton could have had that lesson for free by learning from Gordon Brown, proving that point in the singular instance with the old dear from Oldham? showing in fact it was he who was the arrogant deluded bigot.

Even his cheap, yet expensive, efforts to buy the majority vote wasn't successful, for either his party oor the country.

[Andromeda451]

Re: Sour grapes

Agreed, Mr. Obama's coattails were non-existent.

[Herby]

Hillary, email, and Electoral College...

Hillary was a staffer around the time Nixon was president, and saw all the problems with "the tapes" he had. Eventually they were made public, and his downfall came shortly after that. Nixon failed due to a coverup,and Hillary knew all about this. The lesson learned here was if you have the evidence under your control you can do with it what you want even if someone asks for it.

Fast forward to a private email server. Under her control (tick), asked for (tick), destroyed (tick), made unavailable (tick). Yup, learned those lessons well. If they can't get to your evidence, that can't haul you into court. Well done Hillary!

As for the Electoral College, sorry, there are actually 51 (you need to count Washing DC here) separate elections going on. Every one has different importance. Some will always go one way (California for the left), some go the other way (Wyoming for the right). That is the way it is. Some states are close to a toss-up, and the candidates need to campaign there (Wisconsin comes to mind). You can't take them for granted. The "popular" vote is meaningless, as that is how the rules are written. Everybody KNOWS the rules, and the final referee is comprised of a court of 9 wise men. Normally we don't want to get to that point, but it does happen (2000 election).

To change the rules, a changeset is needed, and getting it promoted to the source file takes a LOT of work, including the approval of 38 states. This means that if 13 states don't like it it doesn't fly. Being as there are around 13 small population states that would be "put out of business" in elections, I don't see that changeset being promoted any time soon. So, DEAL WITH IT.

Sure it is a terrible way to elect a president, but in the UK the prime minister gets "elected" by his own party (the one in the majority), which might be just as bad (sorry if I got this wrong, my civics class didn't cover UK elections).

Yup, Hilary defeated herself. She thought she was "entitled", and it showed.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Hillary, email, and Electoral College...

"Fast forward to a private email server."

that's just the latest in a long series of corruption by Mrs. Clinton.

how about EVIDENCE TAMPERING in a case where she defended a CHILD RAPIST? The evidence just *disappeared* after her team got a hold of it to "do their own analysis".

Then there was ALL! THAT! SHREDDING! of Whitewater documents and Rose Law Firm documents that had been moved to the White House, and at some point someone saw something and *voila* SHRED PARTY!

And don't forget about Vince Foster. Why DID he "commit suicide" anyway?

And there's the entire BEN GHAZI incident. Mrs. Clinton, was it *REALLY* some stupid YOUTUBE VIDEO that caused all of that? Or maybe it was TERRORISM coinciding with the ANNIVERSARY of 9/11 ???

Mrs. Clinton has a nice record of her "accomplishments" allright, shifting the blame to ANYONE ELSE, doing "the side step", covering things up, shredding, erasing, deleting, obstructing, and DOWNRIGHT LYING.

THAT is why she's not president!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hillary, email, and Electoral College...

HOW about BOMBASTIC BOB who randomly CAPITALISES words for no REASON at ALL, spouting shit read on the INTERNET and BELIEVING everything on IT to BE TRUE.

Talking shit about a child rape case, whether against for for the guilty party to put down another person is fucking disgusting. If you are going to talk about a case get the facts correct before you spout shit and don't use it to defend you hatred of another person because of the position they had been put in.

[FozzyBear]

Oh stuck in denial. the reset switch must be jammed, it's on the back of her head. Use something heavy like a 2 X 4

[Mark 85]

Use something heavy like a 2 X 4

Nah... this is "Merica. Use a Louisville Slugger.. I think the 36 ounce will do the trick.

[Phukov Andigh]

was that really an "interview"

when the "interviewer" pretty much gave the question AND the answer? Not just "softball" but practically T ball.

Interview would lead one to believe actual questions were asked and the interviewee would come up with answers on their own, without being led.

[PhilipN]

Comey

I perceive he did what he had to do. Cover up the new investigation until after the election? Then either continue to cover up that it happened (God, no - even if it came to nothing) or try to explain to people who are not going to listen why you did not reveal the investigation earlier (Puh-lease..)? My understanding (as a non-Yank) is that he did the Right Thing and at the same time preserved the integrity of the FBI. If anyone came out of the appalling electoral process with his reputation intact it was Comey.

[tom dial]

Re: Comey

Some reports at the time had it that there were some FBI agents or US Attorney staff lawyers in the New York area who were quite upset about hushing up the Weiner matter, and it might well have leaked before the election or, maybe worse, after it. As it happened, both letters were public before the election, and comparable poll series do not show that they had any definite effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killary-Clinton or pResident-Evil...

What a choice... Anyone but them! Politricks is just crooked!

[jake]

Watching this childish slap-fest has been really funny ...

... but you lot are getting very, very boring. Any chance of coming up with new copy? If not, give it a rest already. We've heard it all. People with made up minds on any sides of the issues aren't going to change their opinion. All you are doing is generating hot air. Unless that is your point, in which case I feel quite sorry for you.

[Ropewash]

It's odd how they don't mention

The fact that THEY wrote those e-mails the "Russians" made off with.

Not once did I see Podesta or Clinton say that those were fabricated documents spread by her political enemies. Nope. That bit just got whitewashed by screaming Russians!!! loud enough.

The existence of emails in general wasn't the issue. It's what was in them that matters. The DNC wrote what was in them. The "Russians" only made it available to the public.

I think the American people should probably thank the Ruskies for a job well done and encourage them to hack the shit out of all the presidential emails so the people can keep tabs on their leaders.

After all... Their leaders certainly do spy on them.

[Diogenes]

Lost because female ?

I suppose she supports Marine Le Pen and Theresa May then.

I did a variation on this with our extremely lefty female union rep when she tried the "Clinton lost because female' in the staff room just after the election. I asked if at the next election she would vote for the only party headed by a woman - Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The faces she pulled as she tried to digest the question, and frame an answer was priceless.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Lost because female ?

The faces she pulled as she tried to digest the question, and frame an answer was priceless.

You, sir, a beer, deserve!

[mike360]

She sent out a tweet on her birthday which said something along the lines of "Birthday for this future President", I still look at it from time to time and laugh.

[TReko]

This is why I read The Register

Thank you for your superb analysis.

[Cologic]

In my opinion her biggest mistake was to call the Trump voters "Deplorables". Nothing else she had said was so denigrating and condescending.With the result that millions of people moved away from such arrogance. And yes, then there is ony one option to vote for.

That Hillary still has not seen the light, and does not recognize that this false streak in her personality was the main reason. So, Hillary, keep on defending yourself and you will lose, which way you win. Be honest and frank with yourself and the country. Blaming someone else sending an email cannot be used as an excuse for your own failing. Arrogance is the cause of your failing, Nothing else counts after that anymore. Deplorable!!!!!Utterly deplorable!!!!

[Goit]

Did you ever see the 'hot sauce' interview?

It was so false it broke my cringe-o-meter.

[Version 1.0]

Facebook won the election

Facebook and targeted advertising won the election - and it's going to kick your collective arses in the UK too.

Face it, Clinton and Trump were two of the worst possible candidates and it was a toss up as to which one would lose the election. It happened to be Clinton and we got stuck with Trump.

[wolfetone]

Hillary Clinton was never the same after finding that snuke in her snitch.

What? I'll get my coat. But she's the one who's dillusional, not me!

[M7S]

"over-confidence (of her campaign manager Robby Mook) on a data analytics program"

As seems to be the cases with many businesses as well.

IT. No replacement for common sense and experience, particularly when it comes to dealing with people.

[jason 7]

If you want the reasons in a entertaining manner -

Then just visit the Jimmy Dore page on You Tube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA

People don't want corporate paid Democrats that don't work for them and will continue to maintain the staus quo. Clinton was just that.

Platitudes and 'values' won't cut it anymore. Single Payer or GTFO!

[Hans 1]

>Even now, having lost in the most spectacular fashion to probably the least-qualified US presidential candidate in history, Clinton is unable to see her and her team's own failings.

Come on, Bush was no spark either!

[Goit]

It is well known in political circles that Clintons cronies made power plays that influenced and maneuvered Trump into the position of her opposition for the presidency candidacy.

With the motive that 'there was no way she could lose to this bozo'.

In the words of the great Nelson. HA-HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many excuses she comes out with, the truth is that enough US citizens thought she was so unpalatable that Trump was the better alternative. Yes, even Trump.

Clinton is so blinded by ego, so rotten to the core, so propped up by corporate financiers, that she has no understanding how much she's hated by the people that, you know, vote.

There are many people who earnestly wish Trump wasn't president; but you try and find anyone who wishes for another Clinton in the White House.

The Clintons are a spent force; they should both gracefully retire to bitter senescence. Perhaps Bill could dream about how many women he's abused and violated over the years, and Hillary, ever the womens' champion, can ponder how often she looked the other way, whilst all the sordid stuff was going on.

[jason 7]

Yep

Trump was a brick in the pond moment. What it has done is expose the corruption, filth and lies in a way never seen before. It's so blatant now that its fully exposed.

This has made folks that either couldn't see it or didn't want to see it finally admit that something is wrong and it's time for change. People are waking up and realising the politicians haven't been working for them (in fact working against them) for decades.

Clinton was a prime example of that. As long as the money was flowing her way she didn't give a damn. Still doesn't.

Proof is the DNC is trying to do anything to either ignore or quash the progressive movement that wants to get rid of the corporate money in politics. Republicans with a different name.

[Alistair]

Lives in a bubble does the clinton fam

I said it before - 2016 presented two of the worst possible US presidential candidates.

Liar, sure, both of them are documented liars.

Goldman Sachs?, Yup, both of them are owned by Goldman Sachs.

Self Centered, self aggrandizing? Yup, both of them.

Clueless about the lives and times of the general population? Yup, both of them have no clue.

Sadly the G20 states are ... **ALL** EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. in the same sad state of affairs. And there's a few more that are in the back pockets of the investment banks.

And we all though that mockingjay stuff was a FICTIONAL movie......

[Norman123]

DNC did it

DNC choose a dark horse with bad public image instead of someone who had a solution for kicking down the can of worms to the next generation. Funny how insider conspiracy turns into Comy or Russia or Wiki....

[mhenriday]

And Ms May ?

I can't but be reminded of the comments that Jean-Claude Juncker is said to have uttered regarding Theresa Mary May's psychological state and her place of residence, after recently dining with her at 10 Downing Street....

Henri

[Andromeda451]

Riiiight

HRC or Her Highness as she referred to herself lost because a misogynistic, psychopathic crook doesn't work well with the rank and file. The MSM was in her pocket, she outspent 2:1 the Trump team and still lost. We've had 40 years of professional politicians and the American people have suffered from the inept, self-serving, pols. HRC was perceived as a continuation of Mr. Obama's rule and we did SO well under his term a change to an AMATEUR was in order. Love or hate Mr. Trump he does keep the MSM and pols on their toes.

[JCitizen]

Re: Riiiight

Well said - have a pint on me! We've had "professional" politicians for how long, and look at the mess!! Like Trump once said to the auto workers, who are still out of work - "what do you got to lose?"

[mediabeing]

It's sadly telling how out of touch the honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton is, that she thinks she needs to clue us in on what got in the way of her campaign. Sheesh.

I voted for her, because the idea of Trump in the white house was unthinkable.

I wanted Bernie Sanders, and I'm STILL angry about the DNC's part in screwing him over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough Mediabeing my American cousins say exactly the same.

[JaitcH]

Wikileaks needs to keep to what it does best - not diddle elections. Cryptome manages it

I have been a supporter of Wikileaks, governments need their feet being roasted - which Wikileaks, and CRYPTOME.ORG, have done well.

When Wikileaks started messing with an election they, IMHO, crossed a line. I no longer financially support Wikileaks. Elections are KEY to DEMOCRACY. (Check out Turkey).

P.S. Ms. Manning gets out soon!

[LTT]

A complex election boiled down to its essence

The 2016 election was a true race to the bottom. The question in the minds of most voters was not, "Who would make a better president?", but, "Who do I hate LESS?" In the end, slightly more voters -- in more counties that mattered -- decided they hated the idea of President Trump a little less than they hated the idea of President Hillary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just commend El Reg..

.. on an excellent piece of clickbait?

Always good for laughs, poking a beehive full of entrenched opinions.

The only thing I know for sure that happened is that Comey broke established protocol not to comment on investigations so close to election time. It then later emerged he even did so in a partisan fashion because whereas he was mentioning the 10th or so investigation into the same email issue (which suggests, if we are to believe Einstein, that the Republicans who asked for it must be insane), he kept quiet about what we now know to be the already started investigation into the Russian connections of the Trump campaign.

The rest is speculation. Would she have won? Well, maybe he would have lost which would have been a better result by any measure given the wonderful, just JUGE mess he made in only 100 days.

For the moment I'm less interested in what was than what may be - this idiot strikes me as capable of igniting a nuclear war, just because he has no clue of the wider ramifications of what he does.

[Anonymous Coward]

dick texting?

ouch!

No it's okay I will use my own phone thanks

[Mahhn]

Just to keep it real:

Neither candidate received even 25% of the eligible voters votes. That's how bad both candidates were.

[Terry 6]

Fundamental flaw

It seems to me, though this is purely opinion, that there is an issue about having the choice of commanding leader being made or narrowed down to 2 challengers by a pair of in-groups before there is an election. In effect the American public who supported one party or another were not allowed to choose who they wanted for president, only to choose between the alternative party machines' choices. Those who wanted Democrats with Bernie Saunders, or an alternative for Republicans, got shafted. As did Tory voters in the UK who didn't want May and Labour voters who loath Corbyn

I'm not proposing a solution, there may not be one. After all Labour definitely widened who could elect a leader, but don't seem to have provided one that the country's natural Labour voters would vote for.

In the UK it was the system ( theoretically at least) that after the commons had been elected it was the person who could command the support of a majority (of both houses ) who would be invited to form a government. But now the winning party leader just gets taken up the Mall and invited to become PM