No it was not the Russians. It was not James Comey, or the Green party, or fake news, or the “depolorables.” And it was not Wikileaks that cost Hillary Clinton the election.
HRC was the worst candidate we have seen this century, running for just about any public office in all the land.
Her campaign was staffed with snowflake, liberal idiots, who blew through billions of dollars discussing identity politics and zero policy ideas…and now a A Wesleyan University study proves this point out.
Via the Media Project Wesleyan study…
The 2016 presidential campaign broke the mold when it comes to patterns of political advertising. But, in a new publication, the Wesleyan Media Project directors say “Not so fast” to those who argue that advertising no longer matters in elections.
The article published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics (open access through mid-April 2017) shows that the presidential race featured far less advertising than the previous cycle, a huge imbalance in the number of ads across candidates, and one candidate who almost ignored discussions of policy. Yet, at the congressional level, political advertising appeared far more ordinary. The authors share lessons about advertising in the 2016 campaign, and argue that its seeming lack of effectiveness may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.
You can read the full study in here.
1) Clinton’s unexpected losses came in states in which she failed to air ads until the last week.
See the figure below, which shows the number of pro-Trump and pro-Clinton ads aired on broadcast television during each week, both overall (top left panel) and in three key states.
2) Clinton’s message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests. Notice the darkened out area above Clinton’s column. The difference from previous candidates (and from Trump) is telling.
Clinton’s message that Trump was unfit for the presidency without any explanation as to what “change” HRC would initiate lost the election for Team Clinton. Of Clinton’s “negative” ads, 90% went after Trump’s personality. 10% went after Trump’s policies. By contrast, most of Trump’s ads went after Clinton’s personality and her policies.
Liberal left, Hillary surrogate publication Vox can’t cover up Hillary’s campaign failure. No Russians to blame in the article below…
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
Trump, who didn’t exactly run as a wonk, aired a more typical number of policy-focused ads compared with past elections. As an example, the study notes his first big TV buy was for an ad called “Two Americas” — one that portrayed life under Clinton’s immigration policies and one under Trump’s. The Clinton world is pretty bleak. Trump’s is rosy. In all, Factcheck.org gave it a so-so review, saying the claims were based on “murky evidence and misrepresentations.”
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
The study concludes that Clinton’s strategy may have backfired badly. Here’s what they have to say:
“Evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007).
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.”
Of course, as Vox’s Tara Golshan has pointed out, Clinton’s team likely pursued this line against Trump because they thought it was working — most of the polling suggested Clinton was going to win on Election Day.
But the new report also confirms what multiple outlets have already reported: that the Clinton campaign did not appear to realize its vulnerability in the Rust Belt until the final days of the election and, as a result, blew millions that could have been spent elsewhere. Clinton’s team spent virtually nothing advertising in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania until the final week — when they then decided to exponentially increase their resources there.
The Wesleyan researchers write, with some understatement:
“[I]t may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.”
Will the liberal left and mainstream media finally stop blaming Russia, now that study after study confirms the same fact over and over again…Hillary Clinton sucked, as a leader, as a campaigner, and as a likable person.
Jimmy Dore agrees…
The post NEW STUDY exposes exactly why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US elections appeared first on The Duran.