“Russian interference in the election” is a bizarre and unsubstantiated allegation at best.
If a butterfly flies by one hundred miles away did they ruin your picnic?
Hillary Clinton lost the election, because she did not inspire voters.
Hollywood does not mean voters.
The entertainment industry, does not mean voters.
Hillary had every segment of American “opinion” makers in her corner. Every single one. She had every newspaper. She had every media outlet. All the movies were rooting for her.
What Hillary did not have, was voters.
Every single Trump event, was an overload. He stacked stadiums. He had complete packed arenas, everywhere, from very early.
He had people. Real people. Even democrats. He WON.
Because people liked him.
He is for America. He is for building things in America. He is for a successful America.
How many presidents, in both parties, have been for America for the last twenty years?
How many?
Trump won, because he is for our own country.
It is simple. He had the right message. America first.
It has been over one entire generation, since anyone said the things he has said.
In either party.
Enough of the “fake news” mantra.
Hitlery Rotten Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate, Americans had Clinton fatigue (and Bush fatigue), and she is corrupt AF.
There, I fixed it.
But did not Clinton control Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC? Is her team not to blame for the condition of the DNC?
I suggest that the Clinton team only talked to other people in MA-NY-DC-LA-SF. All their information on Harrisburg or Peoria or Colorado Springs was filtered through friends in the beltway. The only Republicans they knew were beltway Republicans. The only Bernie people they knew were beltway Bernies.
They lived in a distorted view of reality. They really thought that they were the inevitable direction of history ... it was their time ... the result of natural evolution.
The result was that they did none of the things that predecessors Dick Morris, Carville, Axelrod had done as those three predecessors were not under the impression that their candidate was inevitable.
In Dec 2014, immediately after the Nov 2014 tsunami, attention turned to the 2016 presidential race. The #1 sentiment in all polls, in all social media, in all blogs and chat rooms and letters to the editor was singular:
No more Bush. No more Clinton.
Neither Jeb nor Hillary would recognize that barrier. Neither had a strategy to mitigate that barrier or flip it to their advantage. Contrast that with Axelrod. Axelrod had a candidate with a lot of negatives. Axelrod expertly flipped his candidate's negatives to be positives. Trump, Lewandowski, Conway, etal flipped Trump's negatives to be positives. That is what competent campaign strategists/managers do. Hillary and her people refused to see reality.
Hillary did absolutely nothing to mitigate "No more Clinton". She ran as the candidate of the past, with experience and knowledge of the past. She did not run as the candidate of the future. Throughout all past presidential campaigns, when there is a choice between the candidate of the past and the candidate of the future, the future wins.
Consider a litany of events.
I'm with her was the campaign slogan chosen for the Hillary campaign long before she officially announced. Most candidates say I'm with you or I'm with the middle class or I'm with hard working Americans. I'm with her made Hillary seem very arrogant and conceited and not caring about the rest of us. Of course, most politicians have those traits. The difference is that most politicians fake an interest in others. Not Hillary. Not her campaign slogan.
In the primaries Trump tagged Jeb low energy. In voters minds, Bush and Clinton were two peas in the same pod ... both throwbacks to the past. When Hillary demonstrated low energy voters associated Hillary with Jeb... both losers. Hillary's conduct during Benghazi spoke of low energy. Her conduct in disagreeing with Obama on certain aspects of foreign policy spoke of low energy.
Then, after not campaigning in August, the photo appeared of Hillary being thrown into a van like a side of beef. That confirmed she was worse than low energy and not up to the rigor of the office. A competent Hillary campaign manager would have designed photo ops to pre-empt the low energy association with Jeb.
Escalation is a winning strategy that is used often. Start with an understatement... an allegation of a minor point. The opponent won't respond. Define the opponent with that image. Then escalate from minor to major definition of the candidate.
Rahm Emmanuel did this expertly in Illinois. McSweeney is extreme on minor issue A that swings no votes. McSweeney does not respond. McSweeney is extreme on minor issue B. McSweeney does not respond. McSweeney is an extremist, out of the mainstream. McSweeney's goose is cooked.
Conclusion: A litany of mistakes by Hillary Clinton herself, and by her hand picked campaign staff and hand picked DNC staff made her campaign a loser.
Note that this analysis is devoid of ideology and issues. It is all about strategy and tactics. I maintain that with the right strategy and tactics, a candidate of any ideology can win. A Reagan or Obama, or Trump or even Hillary can win. But with the wrong strategy and wrong tactics a candidate loses, regardless of ideology and issues. Smart strategy and smart tactics is to cherry pick issues and ideology to benefit your candidate.