Hillary Implies Tulsi Is “A Russian Asset”. Tulsi Fires Back.

Thursday, Hillary Clinton was interviewed on the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe”. David is best known for being Barack Obama’s campaign manager, while Hillary is best known for blowing what should have been one of the easiest Presidential victories in US history.

They talked for roughly an hour about several topics, much of it national news around impeachment and the effect of Trump. However, what really stood out was her stubborn refusal to understand her loss or what motivates third party and swing voters as well as non-voters. Her inability to comprehend how much of her loss had to do with her rather than Trump or protest votes and apathy. And, of course… her unfounded, crazy conspiratorial attacks on Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein as not just potential “spoilers” but as literal Russian agents.

“DP: Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. You know, he got 47.2% in Wisconsin, 47.7% in Michigan… if you had said those before the election, you would have said he’s going to lose in a landslide.

HC: Right.”

Given that America doesn’t run Presidential elections based on popular vote, and that candidates for President don’t run how they would if we did, I’m not sure how much Trump’s 46.1% really matters at the end of the day. Is it low for modern Presidents? Sure. In fact, the last President to receive a lower percentage than Trump of the total vote was Hillary’s husband.

So what about the numbers listed that actually matter? Well, Wisconsin and Michigan are states Trump won by 47 point something a piece, a number that hasn’t been so low since, well, literally the last President we had who wasn’t Obama. The last time we had a President win in a landslide was 1988, and H.W. Bush actually lost Wisconsin

“DP: But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote.

HC: Right.”

In 2016, there was only one third party candidate that actually mattered, and that was Gary Johnson. He did “beat the spread” in some close states. However, post election polling on Gary Johnson voters was pretty clear. Roughly a third of his supporters would have otherwise voted for Trump, a third for Hillary, and a third wouldn’t have voted at all. I personally am among those who did vote for Johnson, and had he not been in the race I probably would have voted for Darrell Castle.

“HC: Well, I think there’s going to be two parts (To Donald Trump’s campaign strategy). And I think it’s going to be the same as 2016. Don’t vote for the other guy. You don’t like me? Well, don’t vote for the other guy. Because the other guy is going to do X, Y, and Z. Or the other guy did such terrible things. And I’m going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and are on the dark web and nobody can find them. But you’re going to see them, and you’re going to see that person doing these horrible things.”

This seems to imply that “the other guy is going to do X, Y, and Z” doesn’t actually matter, which runs completely counter to common sense. In essence, what a candidate is going to do in office seems like the only actual valid thing to consider when determining whether one should vote for them or not.

“They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions,” she said before making one in the second half of the sentence, “but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and are grooming her to be a third party candidate. She’s a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.

DP: Right

HC: Yeah, she’s a Russian asset. Totally! And so, they know they can’t win without a third party candidate. And so, I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you that they’ll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

Although she didn’t use Tulsi’s name here, I don’t think there is any doubt who Hillary means among anyone paying attention. Nor is there any doubt that Hillary, in this interview, is leaning at least a step closer to her inner Alex Jones in order to avoid any critical self-evaluation or responsibility, and blame yet another party for why she lost.

Friday afternoon, Tulsi responded in a Twitter thread:

If the Russians were somehow able to sway our entire election by using a handful of bots with bad syntax and worse arguments, this says more about the American people than Russia itself. If such tactics were effective in an election in which much of the country despised Donald Trump, it could only because they despised her as well.

If the Russians didn’t want Hillary to win in 2016, there must be a reason, especially if she was purportedly involved with approving a deal that sent them uranium or showing naivety on the Russian reset experience. Perhaps it was because Trump represented the fostering of even greater American division than Hillary (which is no small accomplishment). Perhaps it’s because Hillary supported instituting a no-fly zone in Syria while Russian planes were conducting bombing runs, risking a literal hot war with Russia.

Similarly, if the Russians do support Tulsi, there must be a reason. Perhaps it’s because she doesn’t want to risk a hot war with Russia or cause instability in the Middle East in general by conducting counterproductive regime change wars. After all, such quagmires often end poorly and are bad for the country in question, the region, bad for Russia, bad for the US, and just basically bad for business.

In any case, Hillary offered literally zero evidence that the Russians were trying to elevate Tulsi rather than just repeating an unsubstantiated attack that many media outlets have latched onto after losing their objectivity. She wasn’t asked to provide any or even to make her case.

When it comes to Jill Stein, the vast majority of those who voted for her would not have voted at all. She got only about one percent of the total national vote. Well over half of her supporters said they wouldn’t have voted at all. 14 percent of them, amazingly, said they would have voted for Trump. Blaming Jill Stein for her loss is really showing Hillary has stooped to scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses for her loss that don’t include herself. In Michigan, one of the two states singled out, the exit polls said that Stein supporters would have given only 5,000 extra votes for Hillary, which doesn’t even beat the spread in one of the closest states in the election.

It’s no wonder that someone with the foreign policy stance of Hillary, Biden, (President rather than candidate) Obama, (President rather than candidate) W Bush, etc. wouldn’t like Tulsi in the same way that American adversaries that aren’t desirous of more war and prioritize stability over instability would prefer her. But if Tulsi, who has been polling between 0 and 2%, is being supported by the Russians, one thing is clear: Russian influence is ineffective and likely didn’t change the result of the last election either.

Maybe Hillary is going to have to work on finding yet another thing to blame for her loss.