Bingo.






And for a large number of those who voted for her in WV, PA, KY, etc., aside from race, one of the main reasons appears to be the memory of the "good times" of the 1990's under Bill.

And she has of course encouraged the delusion that she can bring them back.

But there are a few problems.

1) In large part the 90's prosperity was based on the dot-com boom--which filtered down. It was not exactly caused by Bill Clinton--except insofar that he was willing to keep Greenspan, a Republican, as I recall,--with his low-interest policy, at the Fed.   

2) When she does bring the good times back, could we have them this time without the bust that followed?

3) Most of the "good times" were after 1994, when the Democrats lost both houses of Congress.   I wonder how many of the good Democratic voters who swallowed her line about bringing the good times back are enthusiastic about the Democrats again losing both Houses. After all, that's the way it happened before.   And some articles I've read credit the gridlock that resulted between Clinton and Congress for whatever good times there were. The thesis would be that that gridlock prevented Bill from interfering with the free market.

4) $120 per barrel oil might make a repeat of the 90's prosperity a bit challenging.

Not that we can expect her voters to actually consider any of this.