Hillary Lost Because ...

[NanceGreggs]

190. Again, reading comprehension.

My OP is NOT about who won or lost. It’s about attributing blame or praise after the fact, which is a narrative that is spun on-the-spot based on who won or lost.

Let’s assume that Obama and McCain ran exactly as they did in 2008 – except the win went to McCain on election night.

Immediately, Obama’s eloquent speeches would be described as “preachy”, his self-confidence would be described as “arrogance”, his “message of change” would have been labelled as totally out-of-step with what the citizenry wanted. In other words, every single thing he said or did that was previously described as a positive would have suddenly been denounced as a negative.

And that’s what is happening here. Had HRC won, everything people are now claiming caused her loss would be praised as having led to her win.

After every election, we get to hear the pre-scripted narrative: “____ didn’t connect with the voters, ____ didn’t have a good ground game, ____ didn’t convey the right message.” The name of whoever lost is simply slotted into the blanks.

In this particular instance, however, insisting that Hillary lost because she did everything wrong flies in the face of the fact that the MAJORITY of voters apparently think she did everything right – and cast their ballots for her accordingly. Due to the EC, that doesn’t give her a “win” – but it does show that the “she did everything wrong” schtick has no basis in reality.

As for you continuing to post here or not, I’m not sure why you think I care one way or the other. Not my monkey, not my circus.