“Why Hillary Lost”
I have heard a variation on this roughly 10 billion times in the last two years. I am fairly certain I’ve heard these theories more than I’ve heard “Stairway To Heaven” on the radio.
And now, of course, being in the thick of the campaign season, (strange when you consider the caucuses are still EIGHT months away) we’re getting into it A-GAYNE.
On CNN (which, in 2016, was laughingly called the Clinton News Network — even as they broadcast the Orange Goblin’s RegelAmerikkka rallies from beginning to end -- Mayor Peter Buttgieg gave the one of the three most popular boilerplate explanations for Hillary’s loss. And of course, CNN had to reward him for this insight with the headline: “Pete Buttigieg Just Nailed What Hillary Clinton Did Wrong in 2016”
We spent, I think, way too much time on our side talking about him," Buttigieg said in an interview with
"The Breakfast Club," a New York City-based radio show, which ran Tuesday morning. "Our whole message was don't vote for him because he is terrible. And even because he is, that is not a message."
That is the single best -- and most concise -- encapsulation of why Clinton lost and Trump won that I have heard from anyone -- Democrat, Republican or independent in the two-plus years since the 2016 election.
Bullshit.
We’ve gotten this over and over again: She didn’t have any policy or strategy other than Trump Sucks.
CNN and other media outlets LOVE this. You know why? It absolves them of all the blame. The fact is, all the stations — MSNBC included — OD’d on Trump coverage from the moment he announced in 2015.
I’m not saying Clinton (who I supported in the primaries) was a perfect candidate. I’m not saying she didn’t have self-inflicted errors.
What I am saying is that there is empirical evidence that shows that TV outlets (moreso than newspapers or mags) were biased in their coverage. I LITERALLY recall turning on CNN or MSNBC and they would be focused on empty podiums where his Gobliness was “due to speak at any moment now.”
We had a billion think pieces on how “unrelatable” Clinton was. (As opposed to the guy who has golden toilets in his NYC Penthouse.)
We had two billion think pieces on the “left-behind blue-collar midwesterner”
Virtually the only airtime Clinton got was for the “deplorables” remark.
But you know what you didn’t get much of? You didn’t get the studies conducted by various universities and study houses on just how lopsided coverage was in 2016.
1) The Tyndall Report
The Tyndall Report monitors the weekday nightly newscasts of the three American broadcast television networks:
Here’s their results for 2016: Five hundred and six stories on the Clinton campaign. Eleven hundred and hundred forty-four for the Goblin.
At the right you see a graph of coverage taken up until Feb 26th of 2016: I think it speaks for itself.
To contradict the hype: Campaign 2016 was not a blockbuster. The Presidential race received the standard amount of coverage for a non-incumbent contest: slightly less than in 2008, slightly more than in 2000 and in 1988. Nothing unusual.
What was unusual was the coverage of Donald Trump -- with more than twice as much airtime as Hillary Clinton -- both unprecedented free publicity and unprecedented scrutiny. With ABC's Tom Llamas in the lead, this election was presented as a contest of personalities rather than of public policy issues
Ten of America’s most prominent media outlets ramped up their negative coverage of Hillary Clinton in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign while also writing fewer positive stories about her, according to a new report released today by Harvard University researchers.
From late September to the middle of October — around the time of the presidential debates — the ratio of critical coverage of Clinton was roughly three positive stories for every two negative ones.
But as the election headed to a close, that gap dramatically widened. In the final two weeks, there were closer to seven negative pieces about Clinton for every two positive pieces,
“Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election”
In this study, we analyze both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election. We document that the majority of mainstream media coverage was negative for both candidates, but largely followed Donald Trump’s agenda: when reporting on Hillary Clinton, coverage primarily focused on the various scandals related to the Clinton Foundation and emails. When focused on Trump, major substantive issues, primarily immigration, were prominent. Indeed, immigration emerged as a central issue in the campaign and served as a defining issue for the Trump campaign.
4) The New York Times had a long form multi-media look at how uneven things were, presented in July of 2016:
Donald Trump is omnipresent. Hardly a day goes by without him calling into a news show, even if it means drawing viewers away from the Republican National Convention. His polarizing rhetoric, a trademark of his campaign from day one, all but guarantees that whatever he says will be covered — even by news outlets such as The Washington Post, whose credentials he has revoked.
On the flip side, Hillary Clinton is notoriously wary of the media. She still hasn’t held a news conference in 2016, and all her public communications are tightly controlled. Even when news about Clinton is driving the day, Trump always seems capable of commandeering the media’s attention in 140 characters or fewer.
#######
Another note for those who say, “oh people want more policy” Elizabeth Warren, has turned out more policy papers than ANYONE running right now. She’s got issues by the truckload. She’s currently in 5th place amongst polls. Yeah, its’ early. But still, she’s playing runner up to Joe Biden who hasn’t even announced yet. But yeah, lack of policy was Hillary’s problem. As the Berkman Klein graph shows, it was emails, emails, emails, whenever Hillary was mentioned on TV. Not healthcare, not children’s welfare, not the environment, the emails.
Of course, this being America, we’re really not into the whole reading thing. This fast food society of ours frowns on analysis, especially when it comes through the one eyed monster. I get that.
And this “Don’t talk about Trump?” bullshit? Sure, let’s leave the guy alone. He’s got people chanting “Lock Her Up” at his Make Bavaria Great Again parties, and sells pics of Hillary in gunsights, and hanging on a noose, but yes, by all means, let’s not disturb the frail sensitives of the poor, out-of-work, disaffected, blue-collar voter with the Trump That Bitch T-shirt. Heaven Forbid.
But is it too much to ask, that our Dem presidential candidates offer up a little more than piling onto the anti-Hillary bandwagon?