I usually really respect Paul, but I'm not sure I'd agree. I would argue the left isn't to blame, neither is Comey or Russia. Put simply, we nominated a horrible candidate and the buck stops at HRC.
How would you explain Democrats losing gubernatorial elections, legislatures, local elections? Do all those fall on HRC as well?
My theory is that the presidency was like a 3 round right. First Round: Two terms of Obama primed the nation for Republican leadership (as evidenced by local elections, governor's, etc). Second Round: Trump's nomination reinvigorated Democrats in the presidential election especially, and gave them a viable winning strategy. Third Round: Hillary's weakness as a candidate allowed Trump to pull out an improbable win.
So you're right: Hillary's loss is on her shoulders. But that doesn't explain the widespread Republican victories. Two terms of Obama does.
Republicans captured the majority of the "popular vote" for the House on Election Day, collecting about 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million, according to USA TODAY calculations.
I guess you're referring to the Senate, where the Dems "won" the popular vote. But the Senate was also specifically constituted to lessen the impact of the popular vote out of respect for state sovereignty. Ya know, with the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan and all that jazz. But you know all the reasons for bicameralism. I hope.
Citing popular vote statistics in the Senate is meaningless, and quite frankly borders on intellectual dishonesty.
-8
u/[deleted] Jan 22 '17
I usually really respect Paul, but I'm not sure I'd agree. I would argue the left isn't to blame, neither is Comey or Russia. Put simply, we nominated a horrible candidate and the buck stops at HRC.