It's Russian hackers, FBI and Wikileaks wot won it – Hillary Clinton on her devastating election loss

Not entirely correct.

"But the truth is, dodgy email security aside, Clinton didn't win because not enough of America liked her or wanted her to be their commander in chief. ®"

Incorrect statement, see popular/electoral.

"Hillary Clinton has lived within a bubble of the super-rich and powerful for nearly 20 years"

BINGO. And that right there in a nutshell is the best explanation for the Trump presidency I've seen.

Trump sucks asteroids through a millipore filter... but Clinton would have been worse.

Sounds just like almost every loser at almost anything in recent history,blame anyone or anything else,except the fact that you yourself caused the failure.

Arrogance and stupidity caused her to fail,thankfully,trump maybe be awful,I suspect Clinton would have been even worse for America and realy bad for those of us outside the USA,I.e,the vast majority of the world's population..

When you are paid over $200,000

More interesting by whom. How many of these speech payments were by "interesting people". The list of her speaking engagements and the list of donors of the Clinton foundation makes a phenomenally interesting reading (especially when you compare it versus her policy positions). Blair is not far behind too.

Corruption the 21st century developed world way - everything above board and for everything you get an invoice for "speaking" or "consulting".

Being caught cheating in two debates probably didn't help her campaign much.

In general the Right doesn't win half as much as the Left loses. It's a situation that people need to address.

Real Reason

Hildafelon lost because of incompetence on her part and those she hired. The Presidential race is one to see who will win the most electoral votes which means who will win states. Total national votes does not matter. It has been this way say Washington which is well before she was born. Knowing that a smart candidate would in her case ignore the left coast and solidly blue states like NY and NJ. She should have made sure she ran hard in the swing states which she ignored. This points to a serious lack of competence on her part. Incompetence as a candidate is not a good sign for competence as the President.

Another issue is many dislike to despise the both her and her sidekick the 'Rapist in Chief' (Bill has been accused of rape by numerous women) because of their general sleaziness for the last 25+ years. Many held their noses and voted for Blowhard because the thought of 4 more years of the Clintons made them vomit.

So what, central America was dealt the same hand.

The United States direct and indirectly overthrew multiple governments using mercenary forces and people all just remember that Oliver North was a good looking soldier. The Electoral College is to blame. Without reform of the number of votes each state has according to its population, the American dream of fair elections is gamed and thus dead.

America had a choice between two very unlike able candidates.

The email fiasco pushed people over the edge. If a candidate can't be trusted with top secret information, that disqualifies them from being president. I did find Comey's timing suspicious and political. But, for a politically appointed office I suppose that's not a surprise...

I was rooting for Sanders because, even though I disagreed with much of his philosophy, he was the only trustworthy candidate that had a chance.

Johnson was my preferred candidate but he never had a chance...

Sour grapes

Those things contributed to her loss, sure, but she could have overcome them easily over a weak candidate with huge unfavorables like Trump if she:

1) didn't act like she was owed the presidency just because she's been a good soldier for the democratic party

2) actually articulated some plans to help the people who Bernie and Trump were talking to about jobs, or heck just acknowledged them in any way

Had she done those things, then the email stuff, the fake news, the Russians would have merely reduced her margin, she still would have won without breaking much of a sweat. Based on exit polling, around 8 million people who voted for Obama voted for Trump. That's a massive loss considering that Obama had approval ratings over 50% during the whole election cycle - it shouldn't have been that hard for her to sell people on going for four more years of Obama. Those 8 million are open minded independents or even democrats who she could have kept with a better campaign. She only needed to keep a total of 50,000 of them from flipping in three states to win!

In the end, it seems like her whole message was "I'm not Trump" which is fine for the democratic base, but hardly enough to win over independents. If she would have said "I'm not Trump" and presented plans and showed why they will help average people and not just the 1% she spent too much time around she would have won. Which is ironic, because so far what little Trump has accomplished has been about helping the 1% and not the blue collar voters who put him in the White House.

Hillary, email, and Electoral College...

Hillary was a staffer around the time Nixon was president, and saw all the problems with "the tapes" he had. Eventually they were made public, and his downfall came shortly after that. Nixon failed due to a coverup,and Hillary knew all about this. The lesson learned here was if you have the evidence under your control you can do with it what you want even if someone asks for it.

Fast forward to a private email server. Under her control (tick), asked for (tick), destroyed (tick), made unavailable (tick). Yup, learned those lessons well. If they can't get to your evidence, that can't haul you into court. Well done Hillary!

As for the Electoral College, sorry, there are actually 51 (you need to count Washing DC here) separate elections going on. Every one has different importance. Some will always go one way (California for the left), some go the other way (Wyoming for the right). That is the way it is. Some states are close to a toss-up, and the candidates need to campaign there (Wisconsin comes to mind). You can't take them for granted. The "popular" vote is meaningless, as that is how the rules are written. Everybody KNOWS the rules, and the final referee is comprised of a court of 9 wise men. Normally we don't want to get to that point, but it does happen (2000 election).

To change the rules, a changeset is needed, and getting it promoted to the source file takes a LOT of work, including the approval of 38 states. This means that if 13 states don't like it it doesn't fly. Being as there are around 13 small population states that would be "put out of business" in elections, I don't see that changeset being promoted any time soon. So, DEAL WITH IT.

Sure it is a terrible way to elect a president, but in the UK the prime minister gets "elected" by his own party (the one in the majority), which might be just as bad (sorry if I got this wrong, my civics class didn't cover UK elections).

Yup, Hilary defeated herself. She thought she was "entitled", and it showed.

was that really an "interview"

when the "interviewer" pretty much gave the question AND the answer? Not just "softball" but practically T ball.

Interview would lead one to believe actual questions were asked and the interviewee would come up with answers on their own, without being led.

Comey

I perceive he did what he had to do. Cover up the new investigation until after the election? Then either continue to cover up that it happened (God, no - even if it came to nothing) or try to explain to people who are not going to listen why you did not reveal the investigation earlier (Puh-lease..)? My understanding (as a non-Yank) is that he did the Right Thing and at the same time preserved the integrity of the FBI. If anyone came out of the appalling electoral process with his reputation intact it was Comey.

Killary-Clinton or pResident-Evil...

What a choice... Anyone but them! Politricks is just crooked!

Watching this childish slap-fest has been really funny ...

... but you lot are getting very, very boring. Any chance of coming up with new copy? If not, give it a rest already. We've heard it all. People with made up minds on any sides of the issues aren't going to change their opinion. All you are doing is generating hot air. Unless that is your point, in which case I feel quite sorry for you.

It's odd how they don't mention

The fact that THEY wrote those e-mails the "Russians" made off with.

Not once did I see Podesta or Clinton say that those were fabricated documents spread by her political enemies. Nope. That bit just got whitewashed by screaming Russians!!! loud enough.

The existence of emails in general wasn't the issue. It's what was in them that matters. The DNC wrote what was in them. The "Russians" only made it available to the public.

I think the American people should probably thank the Ruskies for a job well done and encourage them to hack the shit out of all the presidential emails so the people can keep tabs on their leaders.

After all... Their leaders certainly do spy on them.

She sent out a tweet on her birthday which said something along the lines of "Birthday for this future President", I still look at it from time to time and laugh.

In my opinion her biggest mistake was to call the Trump voters "Deplorables". Nothing else she had said was so denigrating and condescending.With the result that millions of people moved away from such arrogance. And yes, then there is ony one option to vote for.

That Hillary still has not seen the light, and does not recognize that this false streak in her personality was the main reason. So, Hillary, keep on defending yourself and you will lose, which way you win. Be honest and frank with yourself and the country. Blaming someone else sending an email cannot be used as an excuse for your own failing. Arrogance is the cause of your failing, Nothing else counts after that anymore. Deplorable!!!!!Utterly deplorable!!!!

Facebook won the election

Facebook and targeted advertising won the election - and it's going to kick your collective arses in the UK too.

Face it, Clinton and Trump were two of the worst possible candidates and it was a toss up as to which one would lose the election. It happened to be Clinton and we got stuck with Trump.

"over-confidence (of her campaign manager Robby Mook) on a data analytics program"

As seems to be the cases with many businesses as well.

IT. No replacement for common sense and experience, particularly when it comes to dealing with people.

If you want the reasons in a entertaining manner -

Then just visit the Jimmy Dore page on You Tube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA

People don't want corporate paid Democrats that don't work for them and will continue to maintain the staus quo. Clinton was just that.

Platitudes and 'values' won't cut it anymore. Single Payer or GTFO!

>Even now, having lost in the most spectacular fashion to probably the least-qualified US presidential candidate in history, Clinton is unable to see her and her team's own failings.

Come on, Bush was no spark either!

It is well known in political circles that Clintons cronies made power plays that influenced and maneuvered Trump into the position of her opposition for the presidency candidacy.

With the motive that 'there was no way she could lose to this bozo'.

In the words of the great Nelson. HA-HA!

No matter how many excuses she comes out with, the truth is that enough US citizens thought she was so unpalatable that Trump was the better alternative. Yes, even Trump.

Clinton is so blinded by ego, so rotten to the core, so propped up by corporate financiers, that she has no understanding how much she's hated by the people that, you know, vote.

There are many people who earnestly wish Trump wasn't president; but you try and find anyone who wishes for another Clinton in the White House.

The Clintons are a spent force; they should both gracefully retire to bitter senescence. Perhaps Bill could dream about how many women he's abused and violated over the years, and Hillary, ever the womens' champion, can ponder how often she looked the other way, whilst all the sordid stuff was going on.

DNC did it

DNC choose a dark horse with bad public image instead of someone who had a solution for kicking down the can of worms to the next generation. Funny how insider conspiracy turns into Comy or Russia or Wiki....

Riiiight

HRC or Her Highness as she referred to herself lost because a misogynistic, psychopathic crook doesn't work well with the rank and file. The MSM was in her pocket, she outspent 2:1 the Trump team and still lost. We've had 40 years of professional politicians and the American people have suffered from the inept, self-serving, pols. HRC was perceived as a continuation of Mr. Obama's rule and we did SO well under his term a change to an AMATEUR was in order. Love or hate Mr. Trump he does keep the MSM and pols on their toes.

It's sadly telling how out of touch the honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton is, that she thinks she needs to clue us in on what got in the way of her campaign. Sheesh.

I voted for her, because the idea of Trump in the white house was unthinkable.

I wanted Bernie Sanders, and I'm STILL angry about the DNC's part in screwing him over.

A complex election boiled down to its essence

The 2016 election was a true race to the bottom. The question in the minds of most voters was not, "Who would make a better president?", but, "Who do I hate LESS?" In the end, slightly more voters -- in more counties that mattered -- decided they hated the idea of President Trump a little less than they hated the idea of President Hillary.

Can I just commend El Reg..

.. on an excellent piece of clickbait?

Always good for laughs, poking a beehive full of entrenched opinions.

The only thing I know for sure that happened is that Comey broke established protocol not to comment on investigations so close to election time. It then later emerged he even did so in a partisan fashion because whereas he was mentioning the 10th or so investigation into the same email issue (which suggests, if we are to believe Einstein, that the Republicans who asked for it must be insane), he kept quiet about what we now know to be the already started investigation into the Russian connections of the Trump campaign.

The rest is speculation. Would she have won? Well, maybe he would have lost which would have been a better result by any measure given the wonderful, just JUGE mess he made in only 100 days.

For the moment I'm less interested in what was than what may be - this idiot strikes me as capable of igniting a nuclear war, just because he has no clue of the wider ramifications of what he does.

dick texting?

ouch!

No it's okay I will use my own phone thanks

Just to keep it real:

Neither candidate received even 25% of the eligible voters votes. That's how bad both candidates were.

Fundamental flaw

It seems to me, though this is purely opinion, that there is an issue about having the choice of commanding leader being made or narrowed down to 2 challengers by a pair of in-groups before there is an election. In effect the American public who supported one party or another were not allowed to choose who they wanted for president, only to choose between the alternative party machines' choices. Those who wanted Democrats with Bernie Saunders, or an alternative for Republicans, got shafted. As did Tory voters in the UK who didn't want May and Labour voters who loath Corbyn

I'm not proposing a solution, there may not be one. After all Labour definitely widened who could elect a leader, but don't seem to have provided one that the country's natural Labour voters would vote for.

In the UK it was the system ( theoretically at least) that after the commons had been elected it was the person who could command the support of a majority (of both houses ) who would be invited to form a government. But now the winning party leader just gets taken up the Mall and invited to become PM