'This Thing Might Break': Bill Clinton Gives Democrats a Dose of Reality About Trump's Victory Over Kamala

For a man with a history of serial infidelity, serious accusations of misconduct, and a connection to one of the most controversial philanthropic efforts in recent memory — to keep the résumé brief — William Jefferson Clinton remains a master of the electoral game.

Apparently, as he recounts it, Clinton had a far more realistic grasp of Vice President Kamala Harris' chances leading up to Nov. 5, even as her team projected confidence in holding the so-called "blue wall" of Midwestern states and making gains in the Sun Belt.

There was even buzz about flipping Iowa, fueled by a late polling outlier from a pollster known for uncanny accuracy. This time, however, she missed the mark entirely. Trump not only won Iowa by double digits but also swept all six swing states and even Nevada, a state leaning toward Harris but irrelevant in the final electoral calculus.

In an interview with MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart that aired over the weekend, Clinton — viewed by many as out of step with the modern Democratic Party — proved he still had an eye for political trends, even as his party faced a seismic shift.

“I can’t say I was surprised,” Clinton admitted regarding the election results.

“I had the feeling all along that, at the end, this thing might break one way or the other, and all the so-called swing states would vote together,” he said.

Clinton explained that the small percentage of undecided voters remaining in the final days often behave similarly across the country, adding, “Because the last two, three, four percent are pretty much alike throughout the country.”

Capehart, attempting to frame the loss in a historical context, referenced Clinton’s observation that “our oldest demons are patient ones, always eager to manifest themselves in new clothes,” suggesting that progressive victories often require repeated effort.

Clinton, however, wasn’t inclined to sugarcoat.

“This time, there is no question that he won both the popular vote and the Electoral College,” he said, contrasting this election with the contentious 2016 split between his wife and Trump.

Clinton pointed to significant societal and economic upheavals since then, noting, “There’s been a lot of change for people to digest. A lot of economic adversity and upheaval. A lot of social developments.”

He added, “Some of the votes that happened in the last election were people who were just exhausted by uncertainty and tired of carrying it around. That also helps the right.”

Economic adversity, Clinton implied, was a polite way of describing persistent inflation, surging housing costs, supply chain disruptions, and an inconsistent economy — issues that ultimately undermined the Biden-Harris economic agenda.

The "social developments" Clinton referred to could be interpreted as the embrace of progressive causes that alienated some voters. Frustration over "wokeness" and cultural shifts contributed to the electorate’s fatigue, coupled with concerns about leadership competency.

Yet, Harris’ team remained upbeat throughout. Armed with celebrity endorsements, significant funding, and high-profile appearances, they projected optimism, even enlisting Barack Obama to rally voter turnout.

In hindsight, perhaps they should have listened to Clinton — morally flawed but politically savvy — who saw the proverbial meteor hurtling toward them.