Hillary Clinton had all the pieces in place to win the 2016 presidential election. But she’s messed it up — and experts say her campaign will be best remembered as a history-making embarrassment.
After all, the former secretary of state had a massive war chest of donations that far exceeded that of President Donald Trump’s campaign.
Critics say she had the Democratic primaries rigged, and that moderators of the presidential debates skewed the questions in her favor.
Pollsters and the mainstream media consistently favored Hillary over her rivals, and the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that her campaign benefited from millions of illegal votes.
So, how did she lose? According to a new study by the Wesleyan Media Project, it’s simple.
Experts have found that Hillary’s failed 2016 presidential campaign was one of the worst-run political campaigns in recent history.
Hillary’s campaign was “devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential elections,” the study states.
“Clinton’s failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, was the biggest reason for her defeat by Donald Trump,” according to Fox News. “The study also backs the view that Clinton’s focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her opposition contributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.”
In other words, Hillary didn’t have substance.
She relied too heavily on nasty attacks which did not resonate with the public — and had no clear message of her own.
“Message matters, and a message repeated endlessly does no good unless it resonates with a sufficient number of the right voter. Team Clinton’s message that Trump was unfit for presidency may not have been enough,” the study concluded.
Hillary’s ego-driven campaign failed to advertise in states they assumed would go their way.
It clearly cost them — big time.
— The Horn editorial team