Hillary Clinton Lost the Election, Not the Russians

So let me get this straight.

Hillary Clinton loses the election. She knew the rules going in: The one with the most electoral votes wins. She would have gladly accepted the outcome if Trump had won the popular vote but not the Electoral College.

At first, her supporters scream “election fraud!” in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Despite no evidence of any fraud, recounts are ordered in all three states. Donald Trump ends up with more votes than he started.

Then, all of a sudden, we’re told, “The Russians hacked our election.” Evidence? None needed. It’s the words that matter. Feelings trump reality. If Hillary Clinton supporters feel it happened, it happened. The burden of proof shifts to the non-believers, not the True Believing Progressives who are right about all things.

Let’s assume the evidence is solid. OK, the Russians hacked into DNC headquarters. The result? Data was exposed that hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning, we’re told. But why did this data hurt Hillary Clinton? Because it was true, and because it exposed the lies and manipulations of her campaign. It reinforced doubts about her low integrity and character.

Basically, we’re expected to believe that the Russians threw the election to Donald Trump because they exposed truthful information about Hillary Clinton that made a lot of people decide not to vote for her. The evidence is shaky if not entirely arbitrary. And in the meantime, Hillary Clinton gets none of the blame for doing things that made people not want to vote for her.

What are we supposed to take away from this? That the Russians made Hillary Clinton look bad, by exposing unpleasant truths about her, and therefore SHE should now be sworn in on January 20, rather than Donald Trump?

I’m not minimizing the importance of foreign governments interfering with American elections, if and when it’s true. With all the hacking that goes on nowadays, it seems naïve to think that governments don’t hack into prominent people’s computers, particularly authoritarian or dictatorial governments, which nearly all of them are. But doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that the Democratic Party only cares about alleged hacking in this case, and only became concerned when the results of the recount (which they demanded) in crucial swing states showed that Clinton actually received fewer votes than initially reported?

It tells us something about democratic socialism, something that those paying attention already knew: It’s all based on feelings. Socialism and collectivism are economically and morally toxic. They destroy economic growth and they undermine human initiative, innovation and self-responsibility. None of the things the Democratic Party stands for in other contexts make sense other than in purely subjective, emotionalist terms. Is it any wonder their response to the election results is exactly the same?

Hillary Clinton lost the election by the rules of our system. Not the Russians. If the Russians did anything bad or wrong, they should be held accountable. But they’re not the ones who brought Clinton down. Her own lying, corruption and never-ending (to this day) lust for unbridled power did.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!

Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.