Hillary Clinton Calls Third Party Voters ‘Crazy,’ Continues Excuses for Election Loss

‘New York Magazine’ interview displays stunning arrogance

gettyimages 493755608 Hillary Clinton Calls Third Party Voters Crazy, Continues Excuses for Election Loss

Hillary Clinton. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

On May 26, New York Magazine published an interview with Hillary Clinton conducted by Bernie Bros and Obama Boys shill Rebecca Traister. Throughout the interview, Clinton reveled in the various scapegoats and excuses that have been cyclically cited by her and her loyal supporters since her embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. The article cited negative reactions to Clinton stating in a previous interview that she took full responsibility for the election, only to also claim if the election was October 27, she would be president. Those reactions weren’t incited by her invocation of the Comey letter; they were incited by her refusal to reflect on her campaign’s shortcomings. Her campaign largely ignored many of the states that swung the election, and her insistence that the Comey letter killed her chances to win fails to acknowledge that she was under an FBI investigation because of her own conduct. The New York Times‘ Nate Cohn published an article on May 8 noting that there are reasons to be skeptical of the so-called Comey effect. However, for Clinton and her supporters, it’s more convenient to rely on the same pollsters who predicted she would win the election.

In the interview, Clinton brought up Wisconsin but didn’t express regret for failing to campaign in the state. “What I was doing was working. I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians, aided and abetted by the suppression of the vote, particularly in Wisconsin,” she told New York Magazine. That she brought up voter suppression is ironic given the tactics she and the Democratic establishment used to suppress Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy throughout the Democratic primaries.

Clinton made a point to affirm that she beat Sen. Bernie Sanders and alleged she beat Donald Trump—likely referring to her popular vote win, a meaningless victory often touted by her supporters. Traister wrote, “This was an election that was, in many ways, about anger. And Trump and Sanders capitalized on that. ‘Yes,’ Clinton nods. ‘And I beat both of them.'”

Clinton also blamed the media for her loss, despite nearly every major newspaper in the country formally endorsing her campaign. Editorial boards of major publications were stocked with pro-Clinton pundits, and leaked emails revealed that journalists at several mainstream media outlets exchanged their journalistic independence for access to the Clinton campaign.

“Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people,” Clinton said in response to Traister bringing up some of the conservative hires in mainstream media, like New York Times‘ climate change skeptic Bret Stephens.

Clinton’s and the Democratic establishment’s attitude toward third party voters and independents contributed to her loss and the Democratic Party’s downward trajectory throughout the Obama administration. Calling voters who don’t fall in line “crazy” isn’t going to bring attract new voters and will push voters who are increasingly disenfranchised.

In the eyes of many pro-Clinton Democrats, Hillary Clinton lost because voters were ungrateful, immature, stupid, ignorant, or duped by Russian propaganda. They think Clinton was cheated out of the presidency. In reality, she lost an easily winnable election. The flaws and ineptitude of Clinton’s campaign embody the condescension and entitlement that the Democratic establishment continues to exude. By blaming, shaming, and complaining about voters, Clinton and her loyalists avoid reform in Democratic Party as they rehabilitate their images and consolidate their power.