Why do we keep writing about Hillary Clinton's historical failure of a presidential campaign? Because liberals won't stop making bogus excuses and fixating on irrelevancies, and tendentious narratives must be fought and fact-checked. Regular readers already know that Team Clinton made some mind-boggling strategic errors throughout the campaign's home stretch. The nominee did not set foot in the state of Wisconsin during the general election. The nominee and top surrogates made an extended, costly and time-consuming play for Arizona, which Trump ended up carrying by about 3.5 points. Her campaign aired more TV ads in Omaha, Nebraska -- pursuing a single electoral vote -- than it did in Michigan and Wisconsin combined over the race's closing weeks. This all turned out to be political malpractice, rooted in bad data and overconfidence. But this fresh nugget from Politico may take the cake. Incredible:
We've stated previously that the 'Hillary won the popular vote' is immaterial and not dispositive of anything because, understandably, neither campaign was strategizing to win on that metric. Turns out that's not entirely accurate. Team Clinton did fashion certain tactics with the popular vote in mind, diverting potentially-gamechanging resources in order to drive turnout in big cities in non-competitive states, based on a fear that Clinton could potentially wrap up the electoral college while losing the popular vote to Trump. That outcome would have made her president, of course, which she will not be. Top Democratic officials were apparently concerned enough with the appearance of an 'undemocratic' outcome, on which Trump might seize to undermine her legitimacy in the eyes of an electorate that was already predisposed to dislike her.
Ironically, those fears have been realized, just in reverse -- with the Left doing the very sort of undermining they were expecting from a tawdry demagogue like Trump. Alas, no one is above tawdry demagoguery in the face of a humiliating defeat, it seems. Imagine if the Hillary camp had taken threats in Wisconsin and Michigan (and Pennsylvania, for that matter) more seriously, and allocated time and resources accordingly. Those three states were decided by a grand total of less than 100,000 votes, yet HRC and friends were burning through cash in Chicago and New Orleans. She won and lost those two states by 17 and 20 points, respectively. And say, how'd that "investment" work out for the Democratic Party in Louisiana? Oh, and it wasn't merely an issue of money:
Good move, Brooklyn. Hillary fell in Michigan by about 10,000 votes (although who can say, really, with these unacceptable shenanigans afoot?), and got dismantled in Iowa by nearly ten percentage points. That's the sort of data-driven result the very best campaign money could buy bought her. And speaking of lighting cash on fire, I'll leave you with this:
After losing 4 states by only a few hundred thousand votes, here's what Hillary is doing with money she didn't spend in those states. pic.twitter.com/pDohJiCx5v— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) December 14, 2016
If only they'd plowed more money into key cities like San Francisco or Tuscaloosa, maybe they wouldn't be left with gobs of leftover funds (!) on their hands to drop on a lavish party for high roller donors -- which is just about the most Hillary Clinton move in history. Are the Russians forcing her to do that, too?