The questions will undoubtedly be asked for decades to come as the 2016 presidential election will likely turn out to be one of the most studied in history. The research and investigation will focus primarily on one central question: How did a candidate with the political resume, establishment backing, and name recognition of Hillary Clinton lose to a billionaire businessman who never held office in his life?
This was such a humiliating defeat that Hillary couldn’t even manage to address the public until the next day. In a frantic attempt to explain how Hillary’s supposedly inevitable victory turned into defeat, conspiracy theories such as the alleged involvement of the Russians on Mr. Trump’s behalf were concocted. Something, anything had to be found to explain her defeat without placing blame on the candidate or her staff. So some research has been done and there are now answers to these self-reflecting questions.
Wesleyan University has released an interesting piece of research that fills in some of the blanks as one struggles to find reasons for Hillary’s spectacular failure. One columnist, commenting on the study observed that,
“The academic study, conducted by the Wesleyan Media Project, suggests that the reason Hillary lost is simple. She ran the worst campaign in modern political history, but it’s what made her campaign bad that leads many to believe she did, indeed, attempt to rig the election, which left her assuming that she’d already won and explains her horrific campaign efforts.”
There’s an awful lot said in that short paragraph. The implication, indeed the conclusion drawn, is that Hillary figured she did not have to run a quality campaign because she believe she had the election in the bag. Further, it is suggested that this false confidence was due to the allegation that her team had rigged the election to the point where she could not lose.
If that’s true, it represents an incredible level of arrogance and over-confidence on the part of the candidate and her team, and in which chase she richly deserved to lose.
Her indifference to the constituencies she took for granted and needed also contributed to her defeat: “The study says that Hillary ran the worst campaign because she chose to not run ads in three key states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan) until the very last days of her 2016 campaign. This lead working families to assume that she didn’t care about their votes.”
Those of us who have watched Hillary since the early days of her husband’s first campaign for president figured out long ago that Hillary only cares about Hillary. Hence she comes across as insincere, condescending, and aloof. Of course, millions will vote for her because they agree with the positions she supports.
One final point from the study is worth observing, and that is that, “when she did venture into public, she looked sickly and ill and spent her time criticizing Trump and his supporters rather than touting her ideas. She was little more than a recycled Democrat, and the voters saw right through it. Hillary actually spent about 65% of her time either talking negatively about Trump or bragging about herself.”
Hillary offered nothing worth voting for. Do you think that perhaps deep down she knows that, and thus her reliance on unethical tactics to win elections? Probably not. That would require that she possess a soul, and there’s scant evidence of that.
Source: Mad World News