Hillary's Electoral 'Luck'

The Clintons are notoriously corrupt.  Their pathological mendacity reaches back over many decades.  They lie; they cheat; they bribe; they threaten.  Often the Clintons seem to have almost supernatural "luck" that defies the best house odds in Las Vegas. 

Consider Hillary's "shrewd" investments as a virtual novice in the futures market.  When Hillary entered the cattle futures market as the wife of the man who was set to become governor of Arkansas, she had virtually no experience or background in this very competitive and complex business.  She was "lucky," wildly, beyond any reasonable probability analysis.  How lucky?  She turned an initial investment of $1,000 into a whopping $100,000 in less than one year.

The only reasonable explanation is that she had illegal help from folks who gave her "advice" and who were also major political contributors to the Clintons.  Of course, wildly improbable luck is not evidence of crime, and so when evidence of this profoundly suspicious series of transactions came to public light during Bill's first term as president, nothing happened.

The whole history of the Clintons is one of incredible "luck," which stinks of something other than just good fortune.  Bernie Sanders might want to consider how this has affected his run for the Democrat nomination against Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

Forty-five states have held primaries or caucuses so far.  Senator Sanders has won twenty of these states.  His closet contest was in the Michigan primary, in which Sanders had 49.8% of the vote and Hillary had 48.3% of the vote, and most of his victories have been lopsided.  Sanders has won in virtually every region of the nation except the South, typically by wide margins.

Hillary has won twenty-five states, but unlike Sanders, she has had a remarkable number of razor-close victories.  In fact, had Sanders won just three states that Hillary presumably won, then Senator Sanders would have won twenty-three states, and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton would have won only twenty-two states.

During much of evening of May 17, Sanders was ahead of Hillary in the Kentucky primary.  Then, with a Cattlegate sort of "luck," Hillary pulled ahead by the infinitesimal rate of 46.8% to 46.3% and won the primary.  Hillary won Kentucky by the same microscopic margin that she won the first state, Iowa, by 49.9% to 49.6%, in a symbolic victory of great political value.  In mid-March, as Hillary was looking desperately to knock out a very popular challenger, Hillary "won" the Missouri primary by the closest margin in any race by any presidential candidate this year – 49.6% to 49.4% of the vote. 

Curiously, in those states in the Midwest region that border Iowa and Missouri but went for Sanders – Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin – the Vermont senator won by landslides, while in the neighboring Midwest states of Iowa and Missouri, Hillary won by the closest possible margins.  Senator Sanders won the coal-dependent border state of West Virginia by a landslide one week before Hillary eked out the narrowest of victories in another coal-dependent border state, Kentucky.

Could Hillary's supporters have stolen enough votes to deliver by the smallest of margins just enough votes to give her "wins" in states like Kentucky?   One of the tightest allies of the Clintons is Allison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state and chair of the Kentucky State Board of Elections.  She actively campaigned for Hillary in the Kentucky primary despite being the state elected officer to oversee the vote-counting.  The election results were posted by her office almost instantly and reflected her publicly stated opinion almost as soon as the polls closed that "there is no revolution for Sanders."

The secretary of state in Missouri is Jason Kander, who was an early and emphatic supporter of Hillary and has described the incompetent and execrable Mrs. Clinton as "the most qualified person ever to run for president other than George Washington."  Kander is also the Democrats' Senate candidate in 2016 against Republican senator Roy Blunt. 

Grimes and Kander are self-described "progressives" who reflect the approach reflected in the left's notorious "Secretary of State Project" a few years ago, which was to ensure the same "progressive" attitude toward registering and counting votes in elections – and we all know what that means.  Democrat machine politicians have all lined up behind Hillary and opposed Bernie. 

The unbelievable – the quite literally unbelievable – Hillary electoral "luck" was worked again.  Sanders and his supporters ought to be very suspicious and very mad.

The Clintons are notoriously corrupt.  Their pathological mendacity reaches back over many decades.  They lie; they cheat; they bribe; they threaten.  Often the Clintons seem to have almost supernatural "luck" that defies the best house odds in Las Vegas. 

Consider Hillary's "shrewd" investments as a virtual novice in the futures market.  When Hillary entered the cattle futures market as the wife of the man who was set to become governor of Arkansas, she had virtually no experience or background in this very competitive and complex business.  She was "lucky," wildly, beyond any reasonable probability analysis.  How lucky?  She turned an initial investment of $1,000 into a whopping $100,000 in less than one year.

The only reasonable explanation is that she had illegal help from folks who gave her "advice" and who were also major political contributors to the Clintons.  Of course, wildly improbable luck is not evidence of crime, and so when evidence of this profoundly suspicious series of transactions came to public light during Bill's first term as president, nothing happened.

The whole history of the Clintons is one of incredible "luck," which stinks of something other than just good fortune.  Bernie Sanders might want to consider how this has affected his run for the Democrat nomination against Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

Forty-five states have held primaries or caucuses so far.  Senator Sanders has won twenty of these states.  His closet contest was in the Michigan primary, in which Sanders had 49.8% of the vote and Hillary had 48.3% of the vote, and most of his victories have been lopsided.  Sanders has won in virtually every region of the nation except the South, typically by wide margins.

Hillary has won twenty-five states, but unlike Sanders, she has had a remarkable number of razor-close victories.  In fact, had Sanders won just three states that Hillary presumably won, then Senator Sanders would have won twenty-three states, and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton would have won only twenty-two states.

During much of evening of May 17, Sanders was ahead of Hillary in the Kentucky primary.  Then, with a Cattlegate sort of "luck," Hillary pulled ahead by the infinitesimal rate of 46.8% to 46.3% and won the primary.  Hillary won Kentucky by the same microscopic margin that she won the first state, Iowa, by 49.9% to 49.6%, in a symbolic victory of great political value.  In mid-March, as Hillary was looking desperately to knock out a very popular challenger, Hillary "won" the Missouri primary by the closest margin in any race by any presidential candidate this year – 49.6% to 49.4% of the vote. 

Curiously, in those states in the Midwest region that border Iowa and Missouri but went for Sanders – Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin – the Vermont senator won by landslides, while in the neighboring Midwest states of Iowa and Missouri, Hillary won by the closest possible margins.  Senator Sanders won the coal-dependent border state of West Virginia by a landslide one week before Hillary eked out the narrowest of victories in another coal-dependent border state, Kentucky.

Could Hillary's supporters have stolen enough votes to deliver by the smallest of margins just enough votes to give her "wins" in states like Kentucky?   One of the tightest allies of the Clintons is Allison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state and chair of the Kentucky State Board of Elections.  She actively campaigned for Hillary in the Kentucky primary despite being the state elected officer to oversee the vote-counting.  The election results were posted by her office almost instantly and reflected her publicly stated opinion almost as soon as the polls closed that "there is no revolution for Sanders."

The secretary of state in Missouri is Jason Kander, who was an early and emphatic supporter of Hillary and has described the incompetent and execrable Mrs. Clinton as "the most qualified person ever to run for president other than George Washington."  Kander is also the Democrats' Senate candidate in 2016 against Republican senator Roy Blunt. 

Grimes and Kander are self-described "progressives" who reflect the approach reflected in the left's notorious "Secretary of State Project" a few years ago, which was to ensure the same "progressive" attitude toward registering and counting votes in elections – and we all know what that means.  Democrat machine politicians have all lined up behind Hillary and opposed Bernie. 

The unbelievable – the quite literally unbelievable – Hillary electoral "luck" was worked again.  Sanders and his supporters ought to be very suspicious and very mad.