A desperate candidate will do anything it takes to get elected. They will accept contributions from questionable contributors, they will seek votes no matter the cost, and they will allow surrogates to say outlandish things – all in the interest of victory. The American people have come to expect this from Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonWhat the 2016 election can tell us about 2018 midterms Wis. Dem demands apology for Republican's 'communist' jab Ellison as DNC chair will cement Democrats’ position in the minority MORE, but her complete and total refusal to disavow the comments of prominent Democrat leaders is exactly why she lost New Hampshire.
Clinton trailed Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersOvernight Healthcare: Medical cures bill finally heads to White House Overnight Regulation: Obama's reg czar under pressure | Fight looms over Trump EPA pick Overnight Energy: Trump taps EPA foe to head agency | Energy reform bill officially dead MORE (I-Vt.) by eight points among women voters in New Hampshire alone. That’s a major regression from 2008, when she won New Hampshire women by 12 points. In 2008, she played down the historic nature of her being a female candidate in the race, but this cycle she is downright exploiting her gender – and it’s working against her. In fact, just last year Clinton led Sanders by roughly 40 points, so if his proximity to the state was that much of a factor the race would have been much closer.
It is also impossible to take Bill’s claims seriously when comments by her faded-star supporters Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem are proving how tone deaf the Clinton campaign is on what is genuinely offensive to women.
Albright delivered a downright insulting quip by saying, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Shaming women who support Sanders won’t persuade them to vote for Clinton.
That’ll do it. Tell women they’re going to burn if they don’t support Clinton.
Add to the fact that Steinem claimed young women voters weren’t supporting Hillary because they wanted to be where the boys were – supporting the Sanders campaign. It is hard to think of a more antiquated and stereotype-driven remark than that. Even Bill Maher reacted strongly when Steinem made her comments on his show, “Real Time.”
Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty and untrustworthiness are as much an issue for women voters as they are for any other group of voters. With almost weekly reports about her secret email server her refusal to release transcripts of her speeches to special interest groups, and her conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State, voters are rightly suspicious that her pattern of skirting transparency and living above the law would continue in the White House.
The irony of Hillary Clinton losing women is that she once touted female support and framed herself as an icon of progress for women. Now her campaign is hemorrhaging its supposed strongest base of support.
Offensive statements won’t be walked back by the Clinton spin machine. They’ll offer stories to media about Sanders being a socialist and that his victory was strictly based on his proximity to New Hampshire. They’ll announce how they will reorganize and fire staff around her –– once again proving she doesn’t support the women and men on her team – as was proven in her U.S. Senate office.
Hillary Clinton’s problems in New Hampshire were rooted in her flaws as a candidate and personal untrustworthiness, not any mythical charge of sexism. I suspect her history of mismanagement will continue and that regardless of the outrageous things her friends say, the desperate measures she makes to victory, she will continue to struggle in gaining ground – not only with women voters, but with all voters who see through her veil of dishonesty and deceit.
Day is co-chair of the Republican National Committee.