Saturday, December 10, 2016

Why did Clinton lose?

That's the golden question. The media had long-declared her the winner of the race - indeed, their polls and focus groups said that she had won all three debates. Her challenger in the primaries was supposed to be well-meaning but out of touch, her competitor at the hustings was supposed to be the worst candidate in modern American history. The party was firmly by her side, the big donors and Super PACs were continuously shoring up her resources (despite her claims to tax them to oblivion), comedians and millennials were hailing her... it should have been the easiest election for the Democrats. Indeed, going by some self-declared experts, demographic changes over the last generation would ensure that not only would Clinton won, but her party was destined to rule in perpetuity.

And then she lost. In what was the biggest upset in living memory, Donald Trump defeated everybody railed up against him, purely on the back of the support of the American people and the Electoral College system. And now that the election is over and President-elect Donald Trump is busy cobbling together a team to translate his agenda into reality, the time is ripe for a serious dissection of the failed Clinton campaign. And while there will be many stories on this in the future, I'd like to focus on two bad actors: the media, and young people (the so-called millennials).

That the media is the most discredited institution of democracy today is a no-brainer. You trust the media at your own risk, and most likely, you will lose your bet. Having totally taken over college campuses, the Left has now cemented its control over the media. The reason the media gets its wrong so often is that it is no longer interested in hearing both sides - the owners and editors decide their point of view, and that is what will be told, vox populi be damned. And if you happen to disagree, you will be labeled with all manner of insults, shunned away into silence until you reach the ballot box, where you are still free to express your views (for now). This is why the media came up with the unusual phrase 'unfit to be president' without so much as revealing what they believe makes someone 'fit' to be president, and why their anointed winner (Clinton) was 'fit'. The fact is, the very idea that the media gets to decide what makes someone 'fit' to be president is arrogant and elitist, and wholly undemocratic, but who cares about objectivity now?

And that brings me to young people, or millennials as they're called. I suppose I fall into that group by age, but I would quickly be shunned and labeled, so why even try? Most young people are living on the proverbial 'Mt. Stupid' today - they hardly understand the world and how it works, but are pretty sure that they know everything there is to know. They are very idealistic, as young people have always been, but this particular generation is also immensely arrogant and believes that they are always right just because they feel so, and anybody who disagrees with them is evil, or some other such label. Millennials have closed themselves off and created a bubble, and their reaction when they realize they are wrong ranges from comical to alarming. A generation that has grown up falsely believing that everybody always wins, unsurprisingly, does not know how to manage defeat. And in the case of Clinton (and Sanders before her), they were just so sure that they were right that did not even try to check.

Clinton visited fewer places than her rival; she clocked fewer rallies; she gave no press conferences or interviews; her leaked emails revealed a crony relationship with the media, the DNC, and Super PACs; she was not a good speaker; she did not pay heed to inputs from those outside her inner circle. And yet, none of this registered with the two bad hombres I just discussed. For them, she would've won even if she sat at home the whole year! And of course - she lost. Go figure. 

No comments: