Clinton Losses In Michigan, Ohio, PA and Wisconsin Were NOT Shockers To Team Clinton

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by leftee

Actually her team did a horrible job ... did they not realize how important the Rust Belt states were ?

From many articles I read they were warning her.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by LauraC

I was just going through my old comments on the Washington Post website and found this comment I made on January 31, 2016:

"If Hillary Clinton is going to be another term of the Obama administration, who do you think blue collar workers will turn to in order to make their lives better in a general election? Illegals don't vote. On the 29th, the Times had a big article about how union leaders and democrat operatives are worrying that Trump may draw "an unusually large number of union voters" in a possible general election matchup that could put Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in play for Trump, if he's the candidate. Those are swing states Obama carried twice."

I had forgotten about this but apparently, on January 29, 2016 The NY Times, Democrat Operatives and Union Leadership made it clear to Team Clinton and the world that in a General Election if Trump was the opposing candidate, an UNUSUALLY LARGE number of union voters would put Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in play for Trump.

I only repeated it. The NY Times warned about it. The NY Times is not exactly some Right Wing media source that lefties would ignore.

So, let's think about this again. Why did Hillary Clinton do zero campaigning in Wisconsin, for example, for the General Election if everyone and their mother on their side warned them waaaaaaay in advance they could lose those blue collar states Trump supposedly shockingly won? It shouldn't have been a shocker to Team Clinton.

It wasn't Comey. It wasn't the Russians. It wasn't Hillary Clinton falling down. It wasn't Anthony Weiner. It wasn't Bill Clinton's women. It wasn't 3rd party candidates. It wasn't rioting demonstrators. It wasn't the glass ceiling. It wasn't that Clinton wasn't personable.

Team Clinton just flat out screwed up! They were warned months in advance by those that wanted to see her elected and didn't heed the warning.

Edit: Here it is. I found the original NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/bu...mp-unions.html

Their elitist personalities and arrogance doomed themselves.

[earthlyfather]

Hullo? How many articles have we seen the last few years about the vaunted blue wall. Often posted here by the same posters who are now saying there are reasons, other than not defending that blue wall, that cost Mrs Clinton the election.

That is the very definition of hubris, smugness, patriarchal certainty, academia/scientific 'fact' preoccupation, gosh-awful abominations like Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, the CFPB, and on and on and on.

The Dims believe, really believe their stuff smells better.