When Hillary Is Elected President In 2016 Will She Be Able To Fine Tune Obama

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the 2016 US election?

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose the election in 2016.I’m not talking about Electoral College vs popular vote.I’m not talking about Russian meddling, which certainly happened, assuming everyone except Donald Trump and Vlad Putin saying otherwise can be trusted.Had all qualified votes cast in the election been counted, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House.All the handwringing on the part of the Democratic party about how they screwed up and lost the White House is for naught. The Democrat candidate won the election. Had over 1 million qualified votes that were thrown out been counted, both the popular and Electoral College vote would have gone to her.All the Democrats need to do is re-establish the integrity of the voting process. Not an easy task, to be sure, since the GOP knows it won’t win a fair election. But programs like Crosscheck virtually assure that Democrats have to win by a landslide to overcome the suppressed minority votes that are disallowed into the final count.Palast predicted Trump’s win via these voter suppression programs months before it happened. Last I knew there were 28 states where Crosscheck purges minority voters from the rolls based on bogus name matches with voters in neighboring states. I’m glad to know that my home state of Indiana is the first to face a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this blatantly racist scheme.Hillary won the election, it’s just that the votes showing it weren’t all counted. And so we have Trump, who appointed as Chairman of the Voter Fraud Commission none other than the architect of the Crosscheck program.There is, indeed, electoral fraud happening. Republicans and Democrats both should be outraged that this central component of what makes America great - the right to vote for our elected officials - is no longer a legitimate process.Thus, Hillary didn’t lose the election. Hillary “lost” the election.

If Hillary Clinton focused her campaign on rust belt states like PA, MI, VA, WI, OH and MIN, would she have won the election?

Consider these numbers:Wisconsin (10) - Trump - 47.8% - 1,405,284Clinton - 47.0% - 1,382,536Michigan (16) - Trump - 47.6% - 2,279,543Clinton - 47.4% - 2,268,839Pennsylvania (20) - Trump - 48.6% - 2,970,733Clinton - 47.9% - 2,926,441In these cases, Clinton lost by a handful of votes. Every election comes down to energizing a base and getting them out to vote; Trump successfully did that. But ground game is also essential too. The most effective means of getting people out to vote has been proven, time and time again, to have people knocking on doors and talking to others.Also, consider these numbers, courtesy of the Atlantic:Clinton still won most of those counties— but not as decisively as she could have. Matching Obama in those Michigan or Wisconsin counties above would have won her the states, since electoral votes are determined by vote totals within the state. She didn’t play to her strengths. Consequently, if Clinton had invested more time and human resources in these states, I believe she could have won— albeit by similarly narrow margins. A mistake (I hate using that word, by the way) was putting a lot of resources into solidly red states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia.

U.S. Politics in 2015: Why is Elizabeth Warren more popular in the polls than Hillary Clinton?

I believe that it is because she is seen as someone who challenges the status quo.  She challenges the system itself and the powers that be. Most Americans are disgusted with the greed and corruption that thrives in the world around them and someone who has been part of the system for such a long period of time as Mrs. Clinton has been not just as the wife of a Governor or President or as as elected U.S. Senator but as a Walmart board member and an intimate of Wall street is viewed with a more skeptical eye. Senator Warren with her academic background is viewed as an outsider not yet corrupted by the black hole of Washington machinations.  Post the Kennedys, Americans do not want more dynasties in this country. Americans I feel do not want any  more Bushes or Clintons. They are looking for a new beginning. They thought they might get that with Obama but when crooked bankers walk the streets with impunity, when war crimes are swept under the rug,  and when freedoms are eroded or when perpetual war seems to become a reality and the rich get richer while  poverty  soars and the future is so uncertain  it requires someone on a white horse to come to the rescue of a nation because this is a job not for fine tuning but for fundamental change. The public perception is that the resume of Elizabeth Warren is  more apt to meet the requirements.

If Hillary Clinton had won the nomination in 2008, would we be looking at President-elect Obama today instead of Trump?

This election shows us that “the people”, the voters, have very little influence over our elections and leadership.Trump was the “wild card” in this election. Bernie was another “wild card”. Neither of the establishment parties would have chosen either Trump or Bernie, of their own volition. Under normal conditions, the party leadership chooses a candidate. The primary process is there mostly for show.In the case of the Democratic party, the favored candidate is the one who can demonstrate the ability to raise the most money for the campaign. Obama was beating Hillary in that regard back in 2008. Hilary used the next eight years to fine tune her own fund raising ability, and as a result, was the only serious contender when the selection process for 2016 began. The party had decided eight years ago that she would be the nominee. The only thing that would have changed that would have been if someone else with the ability to raise more money than Hillary was raising, had emerged.The Republican party does things in a very similar way.This election was unique in that there were two candidates who came literally from the sidelines, and upset the “status quo” of both parties.