There’s a scene in the movie Airplane 2 where a man is testifying about how Robert Hays’ character was impacted by “the war,” in particular one devastating battle. After a hilarious exchange, the lawyer asks, “Over Macho Grande?” “No, I don’t think I’ll ever get over Macho Grande,” the witness responds. It’s a recurring joke throughout the movie, and it reminds me of Democrats and the 2016 election.
We’re now into the second year of the presidency of Donald Trump and liberals are still entertaining conspiracy theories about how it happened.
The 1947 Roswell UFO crash of liberal election conspiracies, the one that won’t die, is that a few thousand dollars spent by Russians on cheesy Facebook ads and spreading fake news stories was enough to flip the nearly $2 billion spent by Clinton and her allies. It’s seems easier for them to believe Bigfoot stuffed ballot boxes in Wisconsin than the idea that a majority of states didn’t want her to be president.
Like a 15-year-old still clinging to the idea of Santa, they’re free to believe whatever they want. The problem isn’t their perverted reality, it’s the forced imposition of that perverted reality on everyone else.
After countless stories of Russians behind every bush, they still seem to think there’s a smoking gun lurking in the weeds that will overturn Hillary’s Electoral College flogging. There isn’t, but liberals can’t accept the truth.
That brings us to the latest entrant to the rejected X-Files script pile as to why the American people said, “Thanks, but no thanks,” to President Hillary – that fake news stories depressed turnout of Obama voters for Clinton, thereby flipping the election to Trump.
It’s a “study” by researchers at Ohio State, widely reported across the country that claims “fake news probably played a significant role in depressing Hillary Clinton's support on Election Day.”
Recommended
The Washington Post reports, “The study, which has not been peer-reviewed but which may be the first look at how fake news affected voter choices, suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012 supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in fake news stories.”
But in their own “reporting,” if you can call it that, there are very specific words that expose exactly how shoddy and desperate this “study” truly is.
When you hear the word “probably,” you’re getting a guess, or wishful thinking. It’s not proven, or else the word wouldn’t need to be there. The same goes for “suggests.” These are hedging words, inserting a conclusion not proven, simply wanted.
Also, it hasn’t been peer reviewed, as the Post admits. The peer review process is where bad studies go to die – it’s the opportunity for other researchers to check your work, make sure your math adds up and your conclusions are backed up by data. Countless studies don’t make it through this process, don’t stand up to scrutiny, and are never heard from again.
Releasing a study before it’s gone through the peer review process is like serving a cake that hasn’t been baked yet. Slap down a plate of chocolate goo on your guest’s plate and they’ll likely look at you like you sneezed in their face. But this “study” serves a greater purpose for liberals – it reinforces their desired narrative, so standards be damned.
Even the Post admits the half-baked study they made an editorial decision to report on “does not prove that fake news made a difference,” but they reported it anyway.
They didn’t make this decision because these researchers broke new ground or found some new evidence, they did it because they can’t accept the alternative – the people didn’t want Hillary to be president.
It wasn’t because of Russians and Facebook ads, it wasn’t because of fake news, it wasn’t because voting machines were hacked, it wasn’t because she’s a woman, it was because we’d had more than 30 years to get to know her and we didn’t like what we saw. We heard her out and we passed.
I’ve heard countless testimonials from liberal pundits, some of whom I know and like, who swear she’s the salt of the Earth and incredibly generous and funny when you get to know her, and she may well be. But that’s not how she came off as a candidate, or a senator, or first lady.
And even a bad candidate, especially one with unheard of amounts of money and a fawning media, running on good ideas can win. Congress is full of awkward, downright weird people with the social skills of a 5-year-old with Tourette’s on a caffeine high, yet they somehow win. But Hillary, with more advantages than someone running unopposed in an 80 percent Democratic district, failed. It wasn’t by accident, it wasn’t by cheating, it was because it was her.
As the 2018 midterms approach, Democrats can’t help but look back and attempt to refight the battles of the past. Like an obsessed former lover following their ex on new dates from a safe distance, they simply can’t believe the American people chose to break up with Hillary. And neither can she.
This paranoia might end up being the most effective tool in the GOP arsenal come November, since “Vote for us to make up for the vote you willingly cast last time for the guy we deem to be the wrong guy” isn’t really an inspirational campaign slogan. The 2016 election is the Democrats’ Macho Grande, and they’ll never get over Macho Grande…
Join the conversation as a VIP Member