General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can we put it to rest that Hillary was a "bad candidate" [View all]MichMan
(12,681 posts)It was a close election and one could look back at many things that could have changed the outcome. Similar to a football game where a team loses by a point with a last minute field goal. Human nature wants to blame the referees spot of the ball on one play, but looking back, one would have to admit maybe, just maybe, one more foot gained to get a first down, or a dropped pass that wasn't, or making a missed tackle would have changed the entire outcome. A good coach recognizes that an entire game isn't won or lost on just one play.
Hillary was a very good candidate, but of course, no campaign is perfect and there are always things that could have been done better. Without even getting into Russia or the primary, I think if any of the following had not occurred it would have turned out completely different.
1) One party does not generally win 3 election cycles in a row. It has only happened once in my lifetime (in 1988). 2016 was also a year in which being part of the established status quo was not what many voters were looking for. While widely popular with progressives, she also had high negatives among independents and galvanized the opposition. Fair or not, that was the case.
In 2008, Hillary wins easily; in 2016 not so much.
2) Being Secretary of State might have hurt more than it helped. Without it, she would not have been tied so closely to the Obama administration and could perhaps better play the outsider card. While Obama was very popular, that also perpetuated the 3 administrations in a row that usually doesn't win elections. Also there would have been no email or Benghazi issues to fight back against.
3) The African American turnout was very unlikely to be as strong for Hillary as it was for Obama. Maybe that was offset with more support by women, maybe not?
4) I believe since she started out as such a big favorite, that the campaign played it way too safe and thought they could sit on their lead. Very similar to what you see in sporting events when the team with the lead plays to not lose by running out the clock instead of playing to win.
5) Finally, whether she was held to a different standard than others is arguable, but setting up the email system like she did can't be seen as anything but a major blunder. Without it, Comey doesn't even come into play.
This is one issue that I think the campaign handled very, very poorly. Instead of tackling the issue head on and trying to put it behind them, they kept issuing these nuanced statements that only dared the press to keep digging into it causing a drip...drip...drip keeping it on the front page for weeeks and weeks at the worst time.
First it started out that "It was approved by the State Dept.", then "No government business was ever conducted on the server, it was all yoga and Chelsea's wedding", then it changed to "No classified information was ever sent", then it was changed once again to "Nothing that was marked classified was ever sent." Each time, it only dared the media to keep digging. Her off the cuff comment about wiping the server with a cloth, while intended to be a joke, came off badly, IMO.
The fact that she was "most qualified" really has nothing to do with it. McCain would have been considered more qualified than Obama, but it didn't matter. Obama was much more electable at that point in time.