On November 12th, just four days after she lost, Hillary made her first speech reference about the FBI’s role in her loss. In a New York Times article, she is quoted as saying, “There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
Nope. Sorry, Hillary. If you want to talk about “damaging bad news that was leaked,” there was evidence for months, and just days before you were crowned…er…uhm…chosen as the Party’s nominee, about the DNC/HRC collusion to make sure Bernie Sanders was marginalized. However…the part you ignored wasn’t in the back-room tactics, but the raw numbers that the primary elections revealed, before coming back to haunt you on November 8th.
One thing people have to know about me is that I am kind of a “stats freak.” For decades as someone in marketing/advertising, it has been my job and my passion to not only be able to see trends in data, but to learn to follow my “gut instinct” when it comes to assumptions. And for the most part, ironically because I work in broadcast media, I rarely if ever trust the general media to give me a straight answer when something is important.
The Media (of all flavors) has their own job to do; namely, to keep people targeted and coming back for more. I’ll get into the media’s role in this election more in the next post (see? I’m planting the hook…) but, suffice it to say, that I have doubted the pollsters, the talking heads, and 24-hour news channels and their predictions of a Clinton win for months.
And as much as I know you are tired of hearing about it, many of my suspicions, hunches, and gut feelings (now there’s a string of scientific imperial methods for you) were formed on our 9,600 mile, cross country trip last summer. With the exception of Florida, we drove through the very states that “stole the election” from Hillary, and interacted with loads of people there, never shying away from asking them about their political views.
However, when it comes to the results of this election, and some of the key numeric factors that created the outcome, the answer was in the numbers, MONTHS ahead of November 8th.
And, as I teased in the last post (see? I understand the bait/promo media game), there was a twist that my recent research revealed, that really made this election outcome a foregone conclusion. But even more important, it makes an argument for revising the entire primary election process, including changes in the Electoral College and Primary Nomination process.
Fair Warning: This is a Long Post – If you suffer from attention deficit due to extended padular device and social media overuse, it may not be for you. But, these are complex problems that require more than simplistic finger pointing. So, buckle in.
Continue reading →
CrankyOldGuy.com 