What's the difference between Game of Thrones character Cersei Lannister and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? One is an entitled narcissist who quietly supported her lecherous husband (whom she clearly loathed) when it was politically convenient, then insisted it was her turn to rule (even though it wasn't), chose boot-lickers, ass-kissers, and elitist bankers as her advisors while alienating more competent and better-liked people who might have helped her, exacted petty vengeance on imagined enemies, escaped justice and the judgment of the people by destroying her main rival—the charismatic, income-inequality obsessed populist—with an explosive cheat, and was left confused why so many people in her country would rather be ruled by a complete political unknown who tells it like it is.

The other fucks her twin brother.

It comes as little surprise Clinton identifies with the mad queen. In What Happened, her new book about losing the presidential election to Donald Trump, Clinton writes:

Crowds at Trump rallies called for my imprisonment more times than I can count. They shouted, 'Guilty! Guilty!' like the religious zealots in Game of Thrones chanting 'Shame! Shame!' while Cersei Lannister walked back to the Red Keep."

Assuming this reference is genuine—and not something ham-fistedly inserted into the book by a culturally-woke ghostwriter—it's actually a bit revealing. It's true that Cersei is a tragic, occasionally sympathetic figure. But she's also one of the villains of the story: a manifestly incompetent ruler whose greatest talent is hurting every person who crosses her. She doesn't represent any ideology or philosophy beyond naked self-promotion. More than any other claimant for the Iron Throne of Westeros, she wants to rule because she believes it is her turn.

That Clinton would actively invite readers to make this comparison is, um, probably a partial answer to the question asked by the book's title. What happened? Nobody wants to vote for a Cersei.