I wouldn't blame Hillary if she moved to Canada.

[pnwmom]

15. Wrong. There is a great deal of analysis that says voter suppression

hurt Hillary's turnout in the election.

The voter suppression was designed to reduce the vote count of minority communities, and that's where Hillary had her strongest support.

http://www.mtv.com/news/2963739/voter-suppression-russian-election-hack/

And as we focus on Putin’s efforts to steer our election, let’s also look at Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts, a believer in a colorblind America and a longtime opponent of the VRA. The damage he did is even more quantifiable.

Roberts led the majority decision in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, nullifying the VRA’s Section 5. This had required 16 states with especially awful legacies of racial discrimination to have any new voting laws approved by the federal government. In getting rid of this section, Roberts effectively neutered the entire law; voter suppression was still illegal, but the main tool for policing it was gone. A National Commission on Voting Rights report released last year indicated that more than 3,000 changes to state voting laws were blocked between the Act’s inception in 1965 and 2013. That’s more than 3,000 changes that didn’t pass muster with the feds. But this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 14 states had new restrictions in place.

In the first presidential election in half a century without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, the effects were obvious. There were at least 868 fewer polling places across the nation in 2016, leading to long lines at those that still existed. Voters were recklessly, and perhaps illegally, purged from the rolls. Even if courts had stepped in to invalidate new state voting restrictions, there were reports that election workers were enforcing them anyway. Frivolous voter-ID laws, dependent upon the fiction of a voter-fraud epidemic, kept citizens from being able to vote. Republicans often dismiss the difficulty many face when trying to obtain proper identification, ignoring that the requirement itself is like a 21st-century poll tax. But there are real obstacles, most of which affect communities of color.

Even for those with IDs, confusing laws can create unnecessary hurdles. Shortly after the election, I was a guest on a Wisconsin public radio show when a white woman called to say that she was turned away at the polls for not having a driver’s license — despite having other forms of identification and mail on her. Since she’d had several surgeries and used a walker, it wasn’t practical for her to go home and then return to wait in line again.

Wisconsin was only one of several key states that went for Obama in 2012, then saw voter participation drop in 2016 — and, not incidentally, went for Trump. While acknowledging Hillary Clinton’s failure to attract and turn out black voters in urban strongholds like Milwaukee, ascribing all the blame for her loss to poor campaign strategy is incomplete. Wisconsin’s strict voter-ID law was allowed to proceed in 2016 despite earlier court rulings that softened it. Jill Stein’s recount showed that Trump won the state by 22,748 votes, a little less than the average attendance at a Milwaukee Brewers game. Yet as many as 300,000 Wisconsin voters in 2014 lacked the proper identification under the discriminatory and unnecessary law. No one knows how many of them got that ID before November’s election, or how many of those 300,000 would’ve voted for Clinton. The point is that the law made it harder for Wisconsin residents to vote, and it could have very well made a difference in the state’s voting results.