Here's the reality. CO is right.

Date:2017-07-28 17:58:22
Edited:2017-07-28 18:00:54
In Reply To:Hillary Clinton’s New Book ‘What Happened’ Examines 2016 Campaign by Russ
She lost. Plain and simple.

I agree with you that she was very qualified and likely one of the most qualified candidates in history. She didn't have military service but otherwise every box was checked (and obviously many candidates do not have such military service). Qualifications were not the issue.

But this constant blame-casting is ridiculous. She lost because people don't like her and/or don't trust her, and because Trump was a giant middle finger to the establishment that people embraced at the time. It wasn't trickery, it wasn't some Russian bogeyman, it wasn't a news story about her emails -- it wasn't anything other than the fact that she was a deeply flawed candidate who people disliked even more than they disliked Trump.

Just last week they did a poll and she -- even after the utter shitshow that has been the Trump presidency -- has a LOWER favorability rating than he does. If the election happens tomorrow, it's the same outcome.

I might add that I'm pretty sure (no doubt I will be corrected if this is incorrect) that if you exclude California -- where Trump didn't spend any time or advertising money -- she lost the popular vote. You can call this a flaw in the electoral college if you want (although that is debatable; the tyranny of the majority is one of the things the founders wanted to avoid) but the fact is she got out-campaign managed. And maybe it wouldn't have been the 1.5 mil voters needed to change the overall outcome but him spending money in California would have resulted in SOME additional votes.

Frankly I think there's an argument to be made about eliminating TV advertising from all political campaigns. That would certainly change the dynamics of campaign finance. But it would depend upon an informed electorate and that is, sadly, probably too much to ask.
Main Page