It’s difficult to keep track of all the factors responsible for Hillary Clinton’s November defeat, all except for her, of course.
She’s blamed former FBI Director James Comey, Vladimir Putin, and misogyny for her loss.
And she’s just getting started. Hillary is pointing her finger at a new target, and it’s laughable.
Hillary is now blaming the Democratic National Committee for her loss, completely disregarding the fact former DNC Chair Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to her during the campaign.
From The Washington Times:
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Wednesday the Democratic National Committee gave her “nothing” after she clinched the nomination.
“I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee for the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean, it was bankrupt,” she said at the Code Conference in California.
“I had to inject money into it to keep it going.”
But Mrs. Clinton said that she felt the influence of Russia was a major factor, especially on social media, and that fake posts were a huge influence on people’s vote.
“The other side was using content that was just flat out false, and delivering it in a very personalized way, both above the radar screen and below,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“That really influenced the information that people were relying on. And there have been some studies since the election. The vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to the bots that were just out of control.”
When asked if she felt President Trump knew about the Russian influence and the fake posts, she said yes.
“Yes, I’m leaning Trump,” she said. “I think it’s pretty hard not to.”
Mrs. Clinton also said that while her campaign tried to grapple with what was happening, most people felt that her victory was inevitable so the Russia issue could be passed off until after the election.
“I believe that what was happening to me was unprecedented,” she said. “I also think I was the victim of a very broad assumption I was going to win.
So, in addition to blaming the DNC, Hillary blamed the perception of her comfortable lead (more on that later) for her loss.
But she wasn’t done casting aspersions.
Watching the story about her private email server explode was a “maddening” experience, Clinton said, as she specifically called out The New York Times for its coverage of the issue.
“They covered it like it was Pearl Harbor,” she said.
Hillary was appalled her federal crimes were detailed in the press, and then compared her media “persecution” to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Wow.
As for Hillary blaming her specious lead in the polls, it’s ironic because the tech companies in the bag for her contributed to that misperception.
For all the talk about Macedonian teenagers and #FakeNews tilting the scales of the 2016 election, a new study by four academics, Robert Epstein (American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology), Ronald E. Robertson (Northeastern University) and Samantha J. Shepherd and Shu Zhang (American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology), finds something completely different.
Using a sample of “undecideds” selected before the 2016 election, the news that was generated for them by Yahoo and Google was examined.
1) Issue: Were search results provided by search engines in the U.S. biased toward one candidate or the other? Yes. Based on a sample of 4,045 election-related searches conducted during a 25-day period from October 15 to November 8 (Election Day) using the Google and Yahoo search engines through the Firefox browser, we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.
3) Issue: Was the bias the same for all search engines? No. The level of pro-Clinton bias we found on Google (0.19) was more than twice as high as the level of pro-Clinton bias we found on Yahoo (0.09).
5) Issue: Could search results have been biased simply because people were selecting biased search terms? On a scale from -5 (pro-Trump) to +5 (pro-Clinton), the average bias in people’s search terms was slightly pro-Trump (-0.08). The search terms people used should therefore have yielded a pro-Trump bias in search results, but they did not.
6) Issue: Was there bias before October 15? Yes, although we typically received data from only a few searches per day before that date, so we are less certain of the numbers. Looking at data from 1,050 searches conducted between May 19 and October 14, 2016, we found, on average, a pro-Clinton bias throughout this period (0.17), as well as a pro-Clinton bias in all 10 search positions on the first page of search results. To put this another way, we found evidence of a pro Clinton bias in search rankings over a period of nearly six months before the election.
9) Issue: Could the pro-Clinton bias in search results have shifted votes to Mrs. Clinton? A comprehensive study published in 2015 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that biased search rankings can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more – up to 80% in some demographic groups. Extrapolating from the mathematics introduced in this report, in articles published in February 2016 and thereafter, the lead author of the PNAS study predicted that a pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results would, over time, shift at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton. She won the popular vote in the November election by 2,864,974 votes. Without the pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results, her win margin in the popular vote might have been negligible.
The implication of this, if it can be replicated, is pretty clear. Google acted as a
political actor n 2016 to fluff for Hillary Clinton.
Looks like Google did too good of a job shilling for her.
The bottom line is Hillary Clinton had every advantage imaginable, but still lost because she wasn’t good enough.
There’s one more person Hillary needs to blame. She can find her in the mirror.