Okay, it's just truly pitiful now

In the beginning, there was this:

Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.

That’s a direct threat to our democracy.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 24, 2016

Now, though, we have this:

Hillary Clinton has a new excuse for her 2016 loss to now-President Donald Trump: voters in places like Wisconsin, which she notoriously did not visit, were disenfranchised by voter identification laws and prevented from casting ballots in her favor. Clinton specifically blames Republican voter suppression for Stacey Abrams losing the election for Georgia governor, but, for the first time, extrapolated the problem to the 2016 presidential election, claiming that around 200,000 voters in Wisconsin were turned away from the polls because of that state's voter ID requirement (Clinton, of course, lost Wisconsin in a brutal swing state defeat, despite what she claims were internal polls showing her far ahead of Trump).

Poor addlepated old rummy keeps forgetting that there's only ONE poll that counts. It's held on Election Day via the Electoral College, as specifically required by the US Constitution. Means little or nothing to her and her fellow Democrat-Socialists, I know. But still.

"You can run the best campaign, you can have the best plans, you can get the nomination, you can win the popular vote. And you can lose the Electoral College and therefore the election for these four reasons. Number one, voter suppression," Clinton told the crowd of around 300.

Good old HILLARY!™, still just packing 'em in everywhere she goes, eh?

But Stacey Abrams' claim of voter suppression in Georgia is far more solid than Clinton's claim of voter suppression in Wisconsin. Clinton's "200,000" number actually appears to be a misquote of a "300,000" number that originated in a tweet shortly following Clinton's Wisconsin loss. The tweet claimed "300,000 voters were turned away by the states strict Voter ID law," thereby offering proof that the election had been "rigged" for Donald Trump, ostensibly by the Russians.

Even the Lefty "fact checkers" at Snopes debunked that claim, as the article mentions. But even if those voters had been turned away, so what? All that would mean is that as many as 300,000 fraudulent votes would have been undone by the common-sense Voter ID law. Which, y'know, is kinda the whole point of them. No wonder Her Herness—the reigning and unchallengeable Queen Of Corruption—was so upset by them.

“We are witnessing a deliberate and ongoing effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and silence millions of Americans ... particularly women, the elderly and people of color,” Clinton said at the end of her speech. “It’s no accident. It’s in service to their larger goals of obtaining and keeping power.”

Gee, projection much there, Hills? Particularly when it comes to "accepting the results of the election"—clearly something you will never, ever be capable of, you pathetic old soak.