Facebook Friend Michael Smith:
There are now books being written, reviewed and discussed about why Hillary Clinton lost. She has publicly blamed educated white women, the Russians, James Comey in specific and males in general. The books blame her campaign organization and the fact she was simply a flawed candidate, one so flawed that she lost to an even more flawed candidate with a better strategy.
It’s actually very simple. Here are my 5 Reasons I Don’t Have to Wake Up to a President Hillary:
1. She lost because she expected to simply be anointed as victor. She was next in line and had lost in the 2008 primaries to a popular Democrat who was popular due to his race. She expected to ride the same wave of identity politics that popularized the idea that having a black president was somehow cathartic for America and evidence of America’s remorse over slavery. She expected that simply being a woman would give her the same or even greater advantage because there are even more women in America than guilty white liberals and blacks.
2. She lost because she was told she was a lock. That Hillary would be the First Woman President was a foregone conclusion in all the mass media. Before she announced, the MSM was begging her to run – just as they are begging Fauxcohantas Warren now. From the start, she was the anointed successor to Obama. The media sought to apologize for their tawdry, slavering love affair with Obama in 2008 that cost her the nomination by covering her with soft focused cameras and softball interviews. After all, in the world of a race obsessed media, while being black doesn’t trump being a woman, it trumps being a WHITE woman, so the media sought to elevate her as their apology for supporting Obama. In the Democrat party, racism always defeats feminism. Since even before the first vote was counted on election night she was considered the winner, instead of working for votes, her campaign simply took key battleground states for granted — and they lost them, albeit with narrow margins but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not the Electoral College.
3. She lost because she is a Clinton. Being a Clinton means that she is a lying, parsing, corrupt and self-absorbed political creature, one so self-absorbed and lacking such self-awareness as to believe everything bad that happens is someone else’s fault and all good things are direct results of her actions. More than that, the Clinton political stance is known to be more moderate than left wing — actually it is more political opportunistic than ideological — this was a death sentence in a Democrat Party that has moved so far left that it it now chaired and co-chaired by a committed socialist (Tom Perez) and a Muslim congressman with ties to radical Islamic groups and the unindicted co-conspirator organization, CAIR (Keith Ellison) and whose current “stars” are a Vermont socialist who isn’t even a Democrat and a raving lunatic communist, who lies about being Native American for purposes of personal advancement. I don’t think the party of Mondale ever forgave Billy Jeff for pausing the Democrat lurch to the left in 1992.
4. She lost because even rank and file, dirt under their fingernails Democrats thought she was a reprehensible human being. The private email server/national security breach/wipe it with a cloth thing mattered to them. The evasion, outright lies and misrepresentations mattered. Huma Abedin’s connections with the MoBros bothered them. The thought of two women running the White House who had such bad judgement to marry philandering sleazeballs like Bill Clinton and Carlos Danger bothered them. To a surprising majority of Democrats, character actually mattered.Beyond a small and dedicated group of Democrat insiders (including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazille and the Superdelegates), Hillary is despised — the more she appeared in public, the lower her poll numbers dropped.
5. She lost because she ran a “Prevent Defense” campaign. In the words of legendary football coach John Madden, the only thing a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning. Her opponent didn’t expect to win but campaigned to win. Trump targeted key states where he could move the needle with his populist message and win electoral votes and ignored those states that were lost (like California). They counted on her national “popularity” (as shown in the national polls) to carry the day when in actuality, Trump won narrow victories in enough battleground states to win a decisive Electoral College victory even as she won the popular vote by about 3 million votes (primarily from California and New York).
None of these 5 reasons should come as a surprise, they all have been known for years. These were just the things that had to be overlooked to assume another Clinton presidency.
One of those books is reviewed by John Podhoretz:
So guess what? In the last weeks before the election, the Hillary Clinton campaign did no polling. No. Polling. Whatsoever. Oh, it had data. Lots and lots of data. Analytics, even. Data analytics! But it had no independent information on the overall field of battle in states like Florida, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
So when the election began to turn Donald Trump’s way, the Clinton campaign had no idea.
This is one of the thousand revelations in Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, the new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes that, for political junkies, redefines the word “juicy” for our time.
Campaign honcho Robby Mook “was worried about overspending . . . so he declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign.” Mook had learned from his time on the Obama 2012 campaign, Allen and Parnes write, that “old-school polling should be used for testing messages and gauging the sentiments of the electorate and that analytics were just as good for tracking which candidate was ahead and by how much in each state.”
Allen and Parnes report that the Republican National Committee did know — but just couldn’t accept it. The RNC didn’t brief reporters on early November polling data it had developed in Michigan and Pennsylvania “because the upticks there were so rosy that party officials didn’t believe their own data.”
The day after the election, Hillary asked Mook “which decisions had been misguided, where they had erred in strategy and tactics. ‘Our data was wrong,’ he said . . . ‘OK,’ she replied.”
It is true that, but for 100,000 votes in three states, Hillary Clinton would be president today. It is also true that she ended the election with 3 million more votes than Trump. But it is also true, as “Shattered” makes indisputably clear, that she was unquestionably the worst major presidential candidate in our lifetime.
Others (like Bob Dole) did far worse. But they likely never really had a shot. Hillary had no business losing an election to Donald Trump — but Allen and Parnes pile up headshaking detail after headshaking detail from the very beginning of her campaign to its end showing that she and her people were incapable of making a good call.
Hillary’s dead-end defenders and those who want a Satan-ex-machina explanation for the November result can point to FBI Director James Comey’s stop-and-start-and-stop email investigation or Russian meddling. But “Shattered” should shatter any illusions that the Hillary election machine would have run smoothly or successfully in their absence. The campaign was a disaster from the get-go.
The question is: Why?
The answer, if I may be narcissistic for a moment, comes straight out of Hell of a Ride, the book I wrote in 1993 about the disastrous George H.W. Bush re-election campaign the year before.
I describe a scene in which campaign chairman Bob Teeter called Bush’s speechwriters into a meeting in June 1992.
Teeter set before them a chart that looked like the layout of “Hollywood Squares” or the “Brady Bunch” title sequence. Each of the nine boxes had a message the speechwriters were to use in crafting their work — things like “I have been president for 3½ years: Major accomplishments/record.”
The box in the center — Paul Lynde, if you will — read: “Theme/Slogan/Name.”
There was nothing else in the box. “What I want from you,” Teeter said, “is to help me fill this empty box.”
After nearly four years as president, eight years as vice president and nearly 20 years in public life before that, Bush and his closest advisers could come up with no simple reason to give the voters for presenting him with a second term.
So, too, Hillary Clinton. Whatever Trump’s manifold weaknesses, that is what he had in abundance — Make America Great Again.
And Hillary? It was the empty box all over again.
David French adds:
Over at New York magazine, Andrew Sullivan is appalled at the Clinton family’s continued relevance:
It simply amazes me the hold this family still has on the Democratic Party — and on liberals in general. The most popular question that came from interviewer Nick Kristof’s social-media outreach, for example, was: “Are you doing okay?” Here’s Michelle Goldberg: “I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right?” Seriously, can you imagine anyone wondering the same after Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry blew elections?
And everywhere you see not an excoriation of one of the worst campaigns in recent history, leading to the Trump nightmare, but an attempt to blame anyone or anything but Clinton herself for the epic fail. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault, we’re told. It never is. It was the voters’ — those ungrateful, deplorable know-nothings! Their sexism defeated her (despite a majority of white women voting for Trump). A wave of misogyny defeated her (ditto). James Comey is to blame. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — because it highlighted her enmeshment with Wall Street, her brain-dead interventionism and her rapacious money-grubbing since she left the State Department — was the problem. Millennial feminists were guilty as well, for not seeing what an amazing crusader for their cause this candidate was.
I must admit that I’ve been amazed as well. I thought the Democrats would drop the Clintons like a hot potato, but now we’re seeing Chelsea receive fawning treatment, and Hillary still gets glowing coverage from multiple partisan outlets. Why? If you’ll indulge some dime store theorizing, let me suggest that this is a simple function of human nature. We all tend to hate self-reflection. Since the #Resistance casts the political battle in such stark, moralistic terms, how can its members possibly face what they did when they nominated Hillary? Can they truly, humbly grapple with the consequences of nominating a corrupt machine politician for the presidency? Can they truly grapple with the full extent of her deceptions and evasions? No, a clear look in the mirror means acknowledging that 2016 wasn’t a battle of good versus evil but rather a battle between two of America’s most dishonest public figures. A clear look at 2016 means dismounting from the high horse, and no one likes to dismount from the high horse. So they rehabilitate Hillary. They embrace Chelsea. And they keep believing they were on the side of the angels all along.
If you’ll indulge some dime store theorizing, let me suggest that this is a simple function of human nature. We all tend to hate self-reflection. Since the #Resistance casts the political battle in such stark, moralistic terms, how can its members possibly face what they did when they nominated Hillary? Can they truly, humbly grapple with the consequences of nominating a corrupt machine politician for the presidency? Can they truly grapple with the full extent of her deceptions and evasions? No, a clear look in the mirror means acknowledging that 2016 wasn’t a battle of good versus evil but rather a battle between two of America’s most dishonest public figures. A clear look at 2016 means dismounting from the high horse, and no one likes to dismount from the high horse. So they rehabilitate Hillary. They embrace Chelsea. And they keep believing they were on the side of the angels all along.
No, a clear look in the mirror means acknowledging that 2016 wasn’t a battle of good versus evil but rather a battle between two of America’s most dishonest public figures. A clear look at 2016 means dismounting from the high horse, and no one likes to dismount from the high horse. So they rehabilitate Hillary. They embrace Chelsea. And they keep believing they were on the side of the angels all along.
They weren’t. But feel free to persist in your illusions, Democrats. They prevent you from finding someone to run against The Donald in 2020.