What ?!! Russia invaded Poland and/or was forced to give back Crimea due to the concerted pressure/stern words of the West ?!!...No ? Evil Tone officially retired from political life, then committed seppukku ?... Oh, yeah...Trump.
I was somewhat prepared for the massive depression I anticipated when waking to an HRC presidency. But not at all for the unthinkable outcome, that even running against the most beatable opponent imaginable...a bloated orange fascist reality-teevee clown, Hillary would fucking lose. I never quite ruled out the possibility of a Trump victory, knowing what I do of Americans, but still...there's knowing...and then there's knowing. 'Knowing' for two years or so that Hillary was likely to be the next president is not at all the same thing as actually waking up to said reality, and the theoretical knowledge that idiot Americans could elect Trump, is, as I have had the ill fortune to experience, not remotely the same thing, as trying to come to terms with the possible (even more imminent than under Hillary) end of the world.
Ev'ryone's been providing their own autopsies of the election (an election, that we might note for the sake of a smidgen of hope, is not technically over as the actual state-electors have not yet cast their final say) and I suppose I'll finally do the same, though a) my observations are, I think, fairly obvious, and b) no-one gives a shit, and none will likely read the same...
So, why did Hillary lose ? Well, there's the specifically nuanced thousand different pinprick reasons/excuses: Comey letter, FBI bias, Benghazi, (mostly) made-up scandals from the '90's, supposed misogyny from 'Bernie Bros' & others, Jill Stein, Russia, Wikileaks, e-mail server, suppression of minority vote in Republican states, possible manipulation of electronic voting-machines, lazy millennials, gutting of the Voting Rights Act ....
And then, there's the obvious elephants: Hillary lost a) because she was the establishment candidate in a change election, but b) even more than that, if not mostly...'cos she's Hillary. As in, not husband rock-star 'first black president' Bill; as in, not cool uncle smooth-speaking Barack, but just boring ole' widely-distrusted, not-so likeable, 'eat your vegetables' Hillary, the inevitable one. She whose turn it was, just....Because.
Could Comey delaying or differently announcing the investigation into Huma's e-mails have made a difference ? Wikileaks not exposing apparent malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic establishment, DNC, and Clinton Foundation ? Bernie Sanders attempting to reign in his supporters' (IMHO well-justified) contempt of Clinton earlier ? Jill Stein, having the audacity to run as a third-party candidate, and non-right-wing corporatist voters generally choosing to vote for a non-right-wing corporatist candidate ? Republicans not blatantly attempting to suppress minority & urban votes for years & years & years ? Sure, any one of these factors might have made a difference, but in any given election there will be multiple factors, and we'll never know for sure exactly what swayed the end-result one way or another. The only safe bet, especially when the vote for the presidency could also have consequences for down-ballot elections also, is to put forward the most electable candidate possible.
If you're a political party, in say an essentially two-party republic, in say, the most powerful country in the world, trying to choose a candidate, you have essentially two criteria: a) Someone who can do the job of president, which, given we had GWB, comes down to the low low bar of a non-entire moron who can surround him/herself with competent support in the staff & cabinet (ie, You're pretty much safe with anyone so long as they are vaguely mentally stable and not a deranged thin-skinned reality-teevee-show buffoon); and b) Someone who can WIN.
We survived a b-list movie-actor president with Alzheimer's, and even whatever the fuck Dubya was/had. We may or may not survive Trump. But, the point is, competence, temperament, experience, none of it matters in the slightest if you don't fucking WIN.
Democratic pundits & party-insiders are still to this day defending the idea that Hillary was not just a good potential president, but a good candidate, despite the fact, that, having lost* to the half-black first-term senator with a foreign Muslim-sounding name, then nearly losing to the crazy-haired 74-year-old Jewish self-described 'Democratic Socialist' from Vermont, she then went on to lose to...fucking Trump.
In case it were not already clear, I do not give the slightest flying fuck about the feelings of Hillary Clinton or anyone in her campaign, or in the Democratic establishment, or in the political, media-, and corporate establishment of the United States in general. Insofar as they are in mourning over the likely destruction of the republic & possibly humanity itself under Trump, well aren't we fucking all, but as for they themselves; as for Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, DWS, Donna Brazile, Podesta et al ? I never want to hear from them or their ilk ever again, and give not a whit for the disruption of their personal hopes, ambitions, and careers.
Above all, I don't want to hear from anyone in the Democratic establishment or Hillary camp about the word 'Fair':
As is so often noted, life isn't fair. One might think that those who championed welfare-reform & globalisation would acknowledge the same... So, it's not fair that another candidate ran in the Democratic primaries, and pointed out some home-truths about Hillary, huh ? Not fair that third parties exist, and that voters can vote their conscience ? Not fair that sexism still exists ? Not fair that the Republicans beat up on the Clintons in the 'nineties ? Not fair that the Obama-appointed head of the FBI sent that letter when he did ? Not fair that someone, possibly connected or not to Russia, hacked and leaked Podesta's e-mails ? Not fair that, say.....the establishment-media, who were entirely in your back-pocket, would give Donald Trump billions of dollars worth of free advertising, at the Democratic establishment's behest ?.....
I, for one, have always thought it 'unfair' that hiring-practices in most Western countries are so subjective, that the decision usually comes down to a) Social connections/'Who you know' & b) Interviewers' & Hiring Managers' subjective judgement of a person's personality & character, with the actual objective qualifications/fitness for the job being more peripheral in the decision-making, due in large part for many/most jobs that it is hard to accurately measure the same.
Nonetheless, subjective most hiring-decisions are, and, outside perhaps affirmative action when it comes to race**, no preferential advantage is given to the ugly, to the old, to the mobility-challenged, to the socially awkward, to the stammerers, to the shy, to those who freeze under pressure, or those under any other 'unfair' disadvantages... And those who conduct interviews, those who act as hiring-managers are not usually required to meet any particular standard in their decision-making, not required to take some sort of mandatory educatory standard that would hopefully ensure they would always or even mostly select the best candidate. Nope, we just leave it to their gut-instinct, to their first impressions...
And yet, so many of the Dem. establishment types, so many Hillbots would actually blame Voters for her loss. Voters who likely grew up with under-funded educational establishments, with a dysfunctional corporatist profit-obsessed consolidated news-media***, with no time to educate themselves about politics, about policy, about candidates, what when they have to work multiple jobs all available hours of the day in this globalised economy, just to make ends meet... Those voters, even more so than before, but much in the mould of the past, vote primarily not on policy, not on platforms, not on experience, but on the same first impressions, the same instinctive gut-reaction as the interviewer, as the hiring-manager. And they only do so once every two years at the most.
Put simply, voters will tend to choose the candidate they like and/or trust more (or dislike/distrust less). The decision need not be rational, need not be based upon provable facts, need not have any correlation with actual reality... Their gut simply says, 'I kinda like this gal', 'I'm not so sure of this fellow', 'This scum is a lying sac o' shit, 'this guy's shifty as fuck'.... And they make their vote for, in this case, the most powerful person on the planet, on the basis, perhaps of whether they felt their endorphins rise, or felt a little stomach-acid regurgitate when they looked at the one candidate's name or other... Not fair ?... Not relevant.
The Clinton campaign, the DNC, the Democratic establishment & associates in the media, Wall Street, corporate America more generally, all knew about Hillary's unfavourables & baggage years in advance of the election. And yet, they decided years ahead (eight years even, say...) that the candidate would be Hillary. That it was her turn, time to return political favours, time to honour whatever deal she did with Obama in '08, that it was Hillary no matter what, and America would just embrace her regardless because what fucking choice would they have versus whatever cretin of a candidate the Republicans coughed up ?
 |
| Martin Webb Chafee Biden III (I), maybe |
Because people don't like Hillary, because people don't trust Hillary, right or wrong, fair or not. Was it theoretically possible for an unpopular establishment candidate to win, even if her opponent were not Trump, sure. Was it an ideal choice, even in a year when the populace weren't screaming for change, No.
 |
| How far which way ? You tell me. |
Now, normally of course, a politician of sufficient stature to run for president***** would have been vetted by multiple elections, would have a career of election-wins and possible losses that tested their popularity with the public, their ability to sell themselves. Weaker candidates would be winnowed out, and stronger candidates would presumably rise to the top. Hillary, much as her mettle may have been tested in the media, much as her supporters hailed her absurdly as 'the most qualified candidate ever', won just two elections...in New York...coming straight out of the White House with massive name-recognition...and with the entire Democratic establishment behind her. Other than her election & subsequent re-election to the Senate for NY, Hillary's resume in elected politics consists of her two bids for the presidency, in the first of which she lost to the black guy with a foreign Muslim-sounding name, in the latter of which, after nearly losing* to our Doc Brown lookalike, the 74-year-old 'Socialist' Jew from Vermont, she then went on to lose to...fucking Trump.
Winning an election in New York is not nothing. US Senator & Secretary of State is not nothing. I don't deny that Hillary has talents, has intelligence, has a strong character, has some political ability. Do I think that she in any year, under any circumstances, would be a strong-enough candidate to risk a Republican presidency ? No. Do I think that, if Hillary had pursued her own independent political career, back in the 'seventies or so, that she would have risen to the level of a presidential candidate ?****** No.
Hillary could have done anything with her life after she left the White House. I'm sure she would have succeeded, would have flourished if she returned to law, if she returned to the business-world, if she devoted herself to charity-work, whatever. But she wanted to be President so badly, whether the public wanted her as President or not, that she dedicated herself to the project the minute she left the White House, the Senate seat, the deal with Barack to be SoS, all of it a diving-board to propel her, with her name-recognition & establishment-support back into the White House. She would return triumphant, the first female president, naysayers be damned, popularity-ratings be damned, past 'scandals' be damned, the Republicans be damned. And if it took intentionally elevating the likes of Donald Trump to get there, to poison the Republican brand, and possibly even set up an eminently beatable opponent in the general election to get there ? If it meant risking a Trump presidency, even as you sat in the shadow of a possible indictment, even as your popularity dropped & dropped & dropped, even as the polls consistently showed your opponent in the primary massively outperforming you in a general election-matchup, beating the likes of Trump by double-digit margins ?
The Democratic party ran an unpopular, untrusted candidate, who was seen as the very face of the Establishment in a year in which people were screaming for change. After eight years of broken or unmet promises*******, of 'Hope & Change' denied. They looked around in 2015 and could somehow think of, could somehow find no better candidate for the presidency than Hillary Clinton, with all her baggage, all her negatives. And they ended up coincidentally in the general, with the same candidate they had decided upon well in advance of the primaries. A candidate, who, if nothing else, surely couldn't lose to Donald J Trump.
A Wall Street-backed, MSM-backed candidate running against a purported populist, who had rejected the very pursuit of universal healthcare as 'rainbows and unicorns', who insisted that America was fine already, was already great. Who offered a third term of Barack Obama, albeit minus Barack Obama.
Who offered
a third term of Barack Obama
minus Barack Obama.
And minus Joe Biden.
All the same polices as Obama, some more popular, some less so...The same overall direction...Carry on as we are. Some liberal advances maybe on social issues, centre-right corporatists in the White House & the Supreme Court, continuing wars, meagre largely symbolic efforts on climate-change, mere tweaking of an increasingly unpopular******** and unsustainable healthcare-law, civil liberties continuing to be curtailed, more unilateral assassination of undesirables all over the globe by the President, more propping up of unsavoury allies in the Middle East and elsewhere...
Bye bye Barack Obama, bye bye Uncle Joe, palatable faces of unpopular policy...
A third term of Barack Obama, but with likely even more war, with more hawkish foreign policy, more fracking, and...instead of the guy everybody loves...Hillary fucking Clinton.
Meanwhile, there's this guy speaking to the great unwashed of America, the guy who loves the poorly educated, who speaks at a third-grade level, promising the Moon. Who will 'make America great again.' Which will appeal, I wonder...?
And briefly, as for the question as to, unpopular as she may be, how Hillary could have lost to someone with even higher unfavourables, how an election plays out when both candidates are hated ? Well, yes, Comey letter, yes voter-suppression in Republican states, yes she won the popular vote...
Also, whether it's due to genuine frustration with their lot, economic or otherwise; racism; decades of right-wing propaganda fanning the flames of hatred towards the Democrats, supposed Hollywood elites, (((international banking-cabals)))*********, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, the transgender community, supposed 'welfare queens', immigrants, Muslims, 'the Other' in all its various forms..., government in general...Republicans are more motivated.**********
Whatever it is, Republican voters (and older voters who trend more Republican) tend to show up to vote. Even in the midterms. Democratic voters (and younger voters who trend more Democratic don't. The Democrats, even more so than the Republican party, need a presidential candidate who will inspire voters, who will get people off their asses and into the voting-booths. An unpopular candidate offering little or no change in an election that gives people only the choice of lesser evilism, that leaves people feeling hopeless, fearful, and dejected ? When you represent a party that needs to appeal to a largely progressive base ? Hillary just doesn't cut it.
Sorry for that. Now off to the nuclear bunker.....
* What exactly happened in the primaries are a matter for debate, but I think you can figure out what my feelings are on the subject.
** Veterans also, though not perhaps consistently.
*** Wonder whose fault that was ?...
**** Just as it's not the fault of those born dwarfs that they happen to lose in marathons to seven-foot-tall Kenyans with a special genetic mutation that allows them to more efficiently funnel oxygen into their arteries.
Yes, this would not be the case for a non-politician, and an argument against moving too far in the direction of celebrity-candidates.
****** Here's where you call me a sexist, if you aren't already...
******* Yes, I know...Republican obstructionism...Republican obstructionism...
******** If you're one of millions who otherwise couldn't have afforded insurance without the ACA, or would have been denied due to pre-existing conditions, it's likely popular with you. Yes, it did some good. It still has its flaws, it was still an opportunity lost, premiums are still going up...
********* Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. You know who we mean...
********** I could go on here about Republican cussedness, and how random maybe racist voters in the Bible-belt react to concerts with Jay-Z & Beyonce, with Lady Gaga, to that gawd-awful sickening SNL open with McKinnon & Baldwin, but it's just too much.
