Debunking the Possible “Missing 40-80,000 Votes” Claim from Hillary Clinton by Peter Moon

Note: Whenever you see an asterisk (*), that signifies that the claim or information just discussed links back to a source. To see what it links to, just look at the “Links/References” section at the bottom of the page. Find the specific portion being linked to, and the following blue line of code will lead you to the site which the information was disseminated from.Listen. I’ll say this first and foremost: I don’t want to keep talking about “Russian hacking” or “voter suppression against Democrats” in the 2016 election. Yes, I’ll admit it: I like electoral data. I like looking at the maps and data more than I do actual politics. However, what’s done is done. Democrats: Give it up; it’s been almost 3 whole years! Get over the loss, and move on! Only your hardcore fans care about the “Russians” anymore!

I don’t want to go back to debating falsified votes in Florida. I don’t want to fight over whether New York was an illegitimate total or not. And no, I don’t want to keep rebutting the idea that a candidate running for President should win based on popular vote.However, some can’t seem to shut up and move on. One person in particular is the loser of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton. At the Selma march Sunday, March 3rd, Mrs. Clinton said, “I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act and I will tell you it made it makes a really big difference and it doesn’t make a difference in Alabama and Georgia, it made a difference in Wisconsin where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.* This is surprising to me: Why attack Wisconsin now? It’s been 3 years since you lost, and besides, you had Jill Stein attempting a recount before Thanksgiving! Wasn’t Wisconsin a open-and-shut case by now? Hasn’t 3 years been enough?

One theory on this attack which I’ve devised goes like this: Clinton is attacking the farm state due to it going red instead of blue. Indeed, Clinton has made several attacks on other states’ races in the past; Georgia with Stacey Abrams, Michigan, and even Florida (and Wisconsin, counting the latest attack). What’s one thing each have in common? All were close races, all were won by Republicans, and all were heavily publicized. In each, the Republican won by a very slim majority over the Democrat, and survived attempts to re-try the election for a different result.

However, Mrs. Clinton isn’t just talking about “Missing votes” in Wisconsin. Taking another look at her comment would show that she did not specify political parties in the accusation; instead, she threw in a lot of minority groups. These included race-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, and (I guess) ‘anything’ discrimination. This attack on Wisconsin voter agencies shows that Clinton isn’t fond of the state. Apparently, she thinks the state is full of racists, ageists, and xenophobes. And she wonders why she lost the state. This type of “This whole population…” defamation is dangerous to one’s support base in a state, and is especially crippling to that base if the state isn’t deeply in their field. In 2012, Obama won a lot more than Clinton did in 2016. She lost at least 20 counties Obama had won, and over 200,000 votes which he had won. This type of bigotry from Clinton may explain that loss, or it may explain a deep divide in the state itself.

According to the Washington Examiner*, Clinton had never visited Wisconsin during the election. That means that we can rule out the idea that Clinton actually cared. So really, her comments are not trying to support the minorities; they’re meant to complain. She didn’t care about the state during the election, and she sure doesn’t now.

Let’s assume Clinton wasn’t talking about her 2016 loss. Let’s assume she’s talking a bout the 2018 midterms. Alright, Mrs. Clinton. If what you’re saying is indeed true, then it wouldn’t matter to your party. In the 2018 midterms, Wisconsin re-laced their Democratic Senator and elected a New Democratic governor over the old Republican one. “Oh, what about the House??” Okay, let’s go there, then. This next portion of information is directly from the Washington Post*:
In District 1, Bryan Steil won over Randy Bryce 177,492 (54.6%) – 137,508 (42.3%) of the vote. In District 2, Mark Pocan won his race unopposed. In District 3, Democrat Ron Kind won over his Republican challenger Steve Toft 187,888 (59.7%) – 126,980 (40.3%). In District 4, Gwen Mocre retained her seat from Republican challenger Tim Rogers with 206,487 (75.7%) – 59,091 (21.7%) votes. In District 5, Jim Sensenbrenner won over his Democratic challenger Tom Palzewicz 225,619 (62%) – 138,385 (38%). In District 6, Glenn Grothman won his seat over Democrat Dan Kohl with 180,311 (55.5%) – 144,536 (44.5%) votes. In District 7, Republican Sean Duffy retained his seat from Democrat Margaret Engebretson with 194,061 (60.1%) – 124,307 (38.5%) of the vote. In District 8, Mike Gallagher retained his seat from Democrat Beau Liegeois with 209,410 (63.7%) – 119,265 (36.3%) of the vote.

In not one district is the winning margin under 5% of the vote. Also, Clinton’s claim of “40-80 thousand votes” would probably not be exclusive to one area. I’d bet to say she meant statewide-turn away. Even then, not one race would be flipped if that vote was counted in. Besides, whose party was allegedly affected? I’m going to make a hard bet (if this did indeed happen) that it wasn’t Democrat-exclusive. So, there diminishes the effectiveness of this supposed suppression.

What is the importance of Wisconsin, anyways? 270toWin shows it best*: Even if Clinton won Wisconsin by some huge margin, she still would have lost the General. Take into the new tally, and the score still remains at 242-296. She needed to still win at least Pennsylvania and Maine’s 2nd district in order to win, or Florida. So, winning Wisconsin would have meant nothing to the overall count at the end of the day.

In the end, this claim of Hillary’s shows that, after nearly 3 years, she still hasn’t given up. One could call it great, but others could call it crazy. But, one thing is for sure: Clinton still hasn’t learned her lesson of claiming racism on an entire demographic or state. In 2016, Clinton called Trump supporters “Deplorables”. She continued to blame whites and men on her lost. Then, she blamed the Intelligence community and James Comey. After that, she tried the “Sexist” card on Trump, which didn’t work. All of these attacks just siphoned off her support into Trump’s camp. It was a fatal mistake made time and time again, and the career politician still hasn’t yet learned that calling voters “racist”, “sexist”, “oppressive”, “nazis” or other slanderous terms only increases her chances of defeat.

Peter also writes for The Political Curriculum. Follow him on Twitter @realPeterMoon.

“Wisconsin voter suppression”:
“Never visited Wisconsin”:
“Washington Post House Races”:
“270toWin shows it best”:

Leave a Reply

Sign up for The UC Newsletter

%d bloggers like this: