Need More Proof?

If anyone would need more actual proof that the Clinton campaign for the White House is in trouble, I’m here to oblige. No, I’m not talking about her getting her ass handed to her in the primaries like what happened eight years ago. I’m here to talk about her electability as a candidate for president, because in the end, that’s the only thing that matters.

Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008 and was basically in a three-way race. There was Hillary, Barack Obama, who obviously won, and former US Senator John Edwards. So, one would assume that because there were really more people seriously being considered for the Democrats’ nomination back then that she would have received less votes than she has in 2016 when it’s just her and Bernie Sanders, right? Wrong. In 2008, Clinton received to this point in the primaries, 12, 727,221 votes. So far in 2016, through the same point, she has received 12, 437,734 votes. That’s a difference of 290,485 fewer votes with one fewer candidate running. The overwhelming question is, “Why?”

The answer is, she underperforms in key battleground states that most likely have been energized by the emergence of Donald Trump. Now, I know that won’t sit well with my friends on the left, but Hillary has been trying to run to the left of Bernie Sanders, while Trump is playing centrist in the GOP race. And it’s a lot more appealing to be a centrist (even in a primary) than a fringe candidate which is what Hillary has basically become. Here is a list of the states where Hillary has done worse in 2016 than in 2008:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Washington State, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska.

Notice anything interesting? All of those states EXCEPT for Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Alaska went to Obama just four years ago. And if the early polling data is correct, Trump now leads Clinton in EACH of those states. That is a HUGE 10 state swing on the electoral map that forecasts a landslide for Trump. Forget about the popular vote, that doesn’t count. It’s all about electoral math. There is no way Hillary can afford to lose three of those states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York), and still come out a winner, much less 19!

Now, when you take into account that Hillary lost 45% of her popularity in Ohio from 2008 to 2016, and Pennsylvania was down over 38%. Even her adopted home state of New York was in decline, as voters are realizing that she still is a carpet-bagger of sorts, opting for Trump who’s a native New Yorker. Those losses would be devastating to her candidacy.

And that is without any FBI bombshell, any big gaffe, anything other than a Hillary Clinton campaign that hasn’t been able to outraise Bernie Sanders…a 70-something socialist from a tiny state, who has only hit her hard on Wall Street speeches, and votes for the Iraq war. What’s going to happen when Trump starts hitting her on everything else?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!