“Turns out that her campaign didn’t inspire a lot of people to the polls…Excitement for Hillary was always low—and forced.”
Now that Hillary Clinton is making her way back into the public spotlight, we’re starting to hear a lot more about who’s to blame for her loss. Of course, President Trump is at the top of her list. So too are members of her campaign staff, pollsters, The New York Times, supporters who didn’t show up at the polls, James Comey, Putin and the Russians, and various others. You know whose name you’re not going to find? Hillary Clinton’s own.
Save perhaps for President Trump, no one else is singularly so responsible for her loss than Hillary herself. Yet, she has so far proven unwilling to take any of the blame. As Hillary stated in a recent interview, “I take responsibility for every decision I make—but that’s not why I lost.” In other words, the blame doesn’t fall on Hillary’s shoulders, at least in her mind.
However, as the nominee and candidate for president, no one else should have to shoulder as much blame as Hillary. And I say this as someone who does believe that sexism and other “unfair” factors played a role.
Still, it wasn’t sexism that inspired Hillary to ignore voters in Michigan and Wisconsin and to jet set out to California to meet with rich donors. And it wasn’t sexism that inspired a largely negative campaign that focused on why people should vote against Donald Trump, rather than why they should vote for Hillary Clinton. Turns out that her campaign didn’t inspire a lot of people to the polls.
Sexism may have been a factor in Hillary’s inability to connect with voters, especially working and middle class voters. But there were many other factors as well. Hillary has a tendency of coming off as an elitist. She can’t pour a beer, she hasn’t driven a car in years, and she always seemed to struggle to relate to people directly.
Her campaign, meanwhile, was mostly tone deaf. After winning the DNC nomination, she largely blew off Michigan and Wisconsin. The problem is that if you want midwestern voters, you have to meet with them and respect them. You can’t ignore them and skip off to sunny California to eat triple-digit meals and hob knob with celebrities and millionaires instead.
It seemed that every Hillary mailer was another chance to pander for money. At most of Clinton’s events, average voters were typically sidelined. Hillary would pop out for some selfies and handshakes, then retreat behind closed curtains, where she could wine and dine big money donors.
Perhaps early projections showing a Clinton victory encouraged some voters to stay home. Yet if Hillary had truly connected with voters, they would have shown up regardless, happy to be a part of her movement. Excitement for Hillary was always low—and forced.
Clinton also went out of her way to blame the DNC. Truthfully, the DNC is a pitiful organization, lacking the strength and resources of the GOP. But that mainly falls on leaders like the Clintons, who—“gasp”—have ignored the organization for years. It is underfunded and pathetically coordinated, and the blame for that is on Democrat big shots, including the Clinton family.
Clinton also ignored pleas from DNC and state staff to dedicate time and resources to vulnerable states, including Wisconsin and Michigan. These two states were part of the “blue wall” that never materialized. Ironically, Clinton was still spending in guaranteed-blue California, likely in an effort to run up the popular vote count, even as the race tightened in Michigan and Wisconsin.
So who’s really to blame for Hillary’s loss? Ultimately, election losses—and victories—come down to the candidates and their choices.