One person who didn’t take kindly to being Hillary Clinton’s latest scapegoat for losing the election (which she really won!) is Andrew Therriault. He was head of the data team for the DNC, the people who compiled the polling data that she dismissed as “mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong.” Therriault took to Twitter to defend his people and his numbers. You can read those tweets, along with a couple he later deleted, at the link. Warning, he utilizes a few favorite Democratic Party words that most red state folks don’t repeat in polite company.

For Hillary to blame the DNC data team for her own bad campaign decisions is as disingenuous as her blaming Russia or “fake news” or the powerful conservative media or that horrible mainstream media that treated her so badly while not attacking Donald Trump (where did she give his interview, on Bizarro World?) In one of his deleted tweets, Therriault claimed the DNC data team never had Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania looking anywhere close to safe for Hillary, but “her team thought they knew better.” This would jibe with the book “Shattered,” which revealed that Bill Clinton tried to warn her campaign that she needed to shore up support from blue collar voters, but her data guru sniffily dismissed the guy who’d actually won the Presidency twice, saying that Bill’s anecdotal evidence didn’t match his data set.

Commentary continues below advertisement

In truth, the only truly bad data out there was in Hillary’s campaign and all the polls that kept trying to convince us the race was over. I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this because I was one of only a tiny handful of media figures who predicted a Trump win and stuck to it even when a WaPo poll had Hillary ahead by 11 points. Interviewers would chuckle and roll their eyes at poor deluded ol’ Uncle Huck, or assume that I was just trying to put a brave spin on the disaster. No, it’s just that after a lifetime in politics, I know how to read the internals of polls, and I know garbage when I see it. Those polls assumed there was so much enthusiasm for Hillary that she would draw even more black votes than Obama, when she couldn’t even fill a high school gym. One “shock poll” that showed her winning in Arizona had to oversample Democrats by 24 points to get her a 5-point lead. How could anyone possibly have believed that? Only because they wanted to believe it so badly. But Hillary Clinton isn't Tinkerbell. Clapping and saying, "I DO believe in Hillary!" won't make her President.

It’s said that the worst thing a politician can do is to start believing his (or her) own propaganda. I can’t imagine the DNC data people were dumb enough to make that mistake, but judging from Hillary’s recent comments, I’m absolutely convinced she believed it.