The Hillary Clinton campaign autopsy is underway, though little remains of the carcass.
Hillary Clinton was run over by a “Trump truck,” and is now political road-kill.
I don’t know the final tally of votes, I just know that as I predicted Trump won. If Trump won be one vote, he won BIG. He wasn’t supposed to win.
According to the soon-to-be even more irrelevant lamestream media and about every other Leftist in America, president-elect Trump was the flawed candidate. So how did Hillary Clinton lose?
According to Politico, she lost because of complacency.
The one big cause seems clearer than others: Her complacency. Years of it. A chronic case of complacency, in fact.
We were told that Clinton wanted Trump. The campaign was said to have orchestrated the Trump-Clinton showdown. This falls under the warning: be careful what you wish for.
While the campaign also kept a close eye on Rubio, monitoring his announcement speech and tightly designing the tweeted responses to his moves, Clinton’s team in Brooklyn was delightedly puzzled by Trump’s shift into the pole position that July after attacking John McCain by declaring, “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Eleven days after those comments about McCain, Clinton aides sought to push the plan even further: An agenda item for top aides’ message planning meeting read, “How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?”
The Clinton campaign initiated the strategy (with the support of the DNC) to oust Bernie Sanders, and pump up Trump.
Longtime Clinton strategist Paul Begala, an adviser to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action commented,
“Trump’s dominance with older high school-educated white males is remarkable. That’s a group that’s been trending away from the Democrats and toward Republicans for a long time. He has driven away college-educated whites…So what Trump is doing—and this will be his legacy when he loses—is handing the suburbs to the Democratic Party.”
So you can see from here that Democrats orchestrated their own demise. Nevertheless, the Left will still perform the autopsy.
To that end, Politico continues with the complacency angle.
There was Clinton’s political complacency: She never so much as visited such usually reliable blue states as Michigan and Wisconsin after the primaries, scoffing at Donald Trump’s claims that he could remake the electoral map and assuming for too long she could safely retain her “blue wall” of safe states (several of which, like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, cost her the White House, even as she held a lead in the popular vote)
There was policy complacency: Clinton never developed the kind of central animating idea or program that wins elections and can be communicated in a heartbeat. “Stronger Together’’ is a slogan, but not a call to arms. Nor did she heed the signs. Last spring, the Bernie Sanders insurgency delivered a powerful piece of intelligence to Clinton world, that the status quo was not cutting it with the Democratic base, and that she was far from universally liked even in her own party. She made some concessions to the Sanders-nistas in the Democratic platform over the summer, then largely reverted to form.
There was personal complacency: Just as she did in 2008 against Barack Obama, when the Clinton campaign ignored some states altogether and focused on the biggest contests, Clinton miscalculated that an upstart insurgent couldn’t beat her, and that anxious voters eager for change would settle for less. Once again, she was wrong. Her reasoning appeared to be that after 25 years on the national stage, she wasn’t credible as a messenger of change. But a nimbler, more self-aware candidate might have found a way to assure Trump voters that she had heard them and to deflect their anxiety to her own advantage, as her husband did with Newt Gingrich’s GOP revolution two decades ago.
Democrats built in complacency by picking their poison. Moreover, they orchestrated the showdown. Finally, as Begala explained, they executed their plan to exacting precision.
The Democrats gave the so-called “uneducated” white voters to Trump, in hopes of painting him as a racist. It certainly worked before. They feared Rubio, because he was considered likable, and they racism wouldn’t work. But Trump was ripe for the picking.
As we all know by now, Trump only became a racist, when he decided to run for president. Democrats have made racism “sticky” to the Republicans in the past. However in this case, it just didn’t work.
Blacks began immediately abandoning Hillary Clinton, as Trump asked the very simple question: “What do you have to lose?”
The Democrats had never been challenged on their ineffectiveness in the black community. For sure, they were complacent. Clinton’s last ditch efforts with Jay-Z and others was pathetic political pandering. Blacks saw through it.
However a bigger group saw through it. So-called uneducated whites decided to showcase their voting power. Tired of being called “deplorables” and other things, whites voted in overwhelming numbers.
To that I say, Hillary Clinton was not complacent at all, and was in fact a motivator. She motivated whites to end the Clinton Era for good.