Hillary Clinton is the GOP Gift That Keeps Giving

Jeff Crouere FEATURED ARTICLES, POLITICAL, SUPPORT A FREE USA!, U.S. NEWS, WATCHMEN ON THE WALL 5 Comments

By Jeff Crouere

Hillary Clinton refuses to accept reality and is desperately trying to cling to political relevance. She has enjoyed a lifetime of political privilege as a First Lady, a United States Senator, a Secretary of State and a presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Sadly, she was awarded all of these prestigious positions because of her husband, not due to her own merit.

On her own, Hillary Clinton is a disastrous loser. In fact, she is the most famous two-time presidential loser in U.S. history who should have received a clear message from the American people. The voters of this country do not want her to be President of the United States.

In 2008, she lost the Democratic Party nomination to an unknown and unproven United States Senator. In 2016, as the infamous email disclosure proved, Clinton was the beneficiary of a corrupt Democratic Party nomination process. Despite having a Democratic National Committee giving her every advantage, and CNN giving her advance notice of debate questions, Hillary Clinton barely defeated an elderly socialist Senator for her party’s nomination. In the general election, she lost the presidency to a political novice, Donald Trump, who was facing incredible disadvantages.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton cannot move past her election loss and will not “go quietly into that good night.” She is a bitter loser, who is mad at the world and especially livid at the American people. As part of her media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” Hillary was recently interviewed for the Irish television program, “Late, Late Show.” Hillary claimed that the loss was “excruciating.” She admitted that she did not even prepare a concession speech and that the loss left her in a “state of shock.”

Obviously, Hillary and her campaign team were overconfident. They believed the phony polls and the false praise from the leftist media. They were facing a candidate, who was derided as former reality television star and was being destroyed on a daily basis by a hostile media.

While Clinton had a united Democratic Party supporting her, Trump had to deal with a divided Republican Party. In the campaign, Hillary spent almost twice as much money as Donald Trump and was advised by an experienced team of professionals, as well as her husband, who was elected President of the United States twice.

Despite his many disadvantages, Trump handily defeated Clinton in the Electoral College, winning 304 votes in 30 states. While Hillary can claim to have won the popular vote, she knows she lost the electoral vote in a landslide. It is no surprise that in her non-stop quest for attention after her defeat, Hillary has proposed an array of radical ideas such as abolishing the Electoral College.

Such a drastic change would move the United States from a constitutional republic toward a direct democracy. Sorry Hillary, the Founding Fathers brilliantly created a country that has not only survived, but prospered, in the last 241 years. It would be foolhardy to change how this country elects Presidents just because one loser is angry.

She told the Irish interviewer that in the days after the election, she would regularly “scream into the pillow.” Hillary felt that by losing to such an unconventional candidate, she not only “let my country down,” but she also “let the world down.”

In reality, many world leaders were probably overjoyed not to have to deal with Hillary Clinton as President. Certainly, they witnessed her horrible record as Secretary of State, the scandalous international fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation and her lifetime record of corruption, including a FBI investigation into her e-mail communications.

By losing, Hillary did the American people and the world a huge favor. In contrast, she feels that the world is just heartbroken that she lost. Thus, she mistakenly believes that everyone is anxiously awaiting her comments on the major news stories of the day. For example, in the aftermath of the horrific Las Vegas massacre, Clinton condemned the National Rifle Association and called for more gun control, what a surprise!

She incorrectly claimed that “if the shooter had a silencer” the number of deaths in the Las Vegas shooting would have been much higher. Wrong Hillary, even the liberal political watchdog organization Politifact noted that “Our research shows that a suppressor would not have made a difference in the Las Vegas case, because of the positioning of the weapons and because of the distance of the shooter from the crowd.”

Once again, Hillary Clinton is embarrassingly wrong. Surely Democrats must be tired of her attempts to remain in the political spotlight. Republicans must be hoping that Hillary is laying the groundwork to run for President in 2020. For the GOP, Hillary Clinton is the gift that keeps giving.

Jeff Crouere is the Host of “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the Political Analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26 and a Columnist for selected publications. For more information, visit his web site at RingsidePolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com

If you like The Olive, then consider helping us to continue the fight against liberalism, political correctness, and the removal of God in this country. Our costs are considerable, and NO one is paid on this site. Please donate today - any amount helps.

Don't forget to follow The Olive Branch Report on Facebook and Twitter. Now available on your Amazon Kindle Device. Please help spread the word about us, share our articles on your favorite social networks.

Viewpoints expressed herein are of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted or linked therein, and do not necessarily represent those of The Olive Branch Report

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Jeff Crouere is the Host of “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the Political Analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26 and a Columnist for selected publications. For more information, visit his web site at RingsidePolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com

Comments 5

  1. Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

    Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

    1. Yes – I supported this at one time as well. Here is the problem with that – the large states, like California and New York, would have most of the say in an election. MANY states votes would in effect NOT count for much at all, hence the need for the Electoral Collage. Irregardless of political persuasion, the Electoral Collage makes it more fair for ALL U.S. states.

      1. Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

        With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

        But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

        In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
        * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
        * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
        * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
        * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
        * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
        * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
        * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

        To put these numbers in perspective,
        Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
        Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
        8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

      2. In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

        California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

        Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

        In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

        In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
        Trump won those states.

        The vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

        In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

        New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
        About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

        New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

        Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

Share your Thoughts