We need to understand how Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump- not to hurt Hillary, but to avoid future losses for the same reasons. A reluctance to fully understand what went wrong, even if it is painful, especially to Hillary should not diminish any examination of the 2016 election. Hillary may not have been one of the best candidates to ever have run for President but she was far from being the worst one. She was not the devil, she has long demonstrated her capacity for handling complex issues and preparing for challenges. Why then did she not beat the least favorable candidate in U.S. history and the candidate who, as she described, presents a true threat to the US? Many are saying “don’t look back – don’t look back, look forward”. The point is we must look back until we feel we understand what happened so that we can work on solutions for the future. How should Democrats prepare for future races?
In April 2016, during the democratic primary contest, we published an analysis of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, then contrasting her with Bernie Sanders. We described Clinton as having economic blind spots, somewhat based on her loyalty to President Obama, and some based on her political philosophy hardening during the Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 2016 she was half-hearted and unconvincing as she moved away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) largely because she had long held free-trade beliefs and was defensive about the downsides of the North American Free Trade Agreement, originated by President George HW Bush, and signed by Bill Clinton. Hillary focused more on the proximate issues surrounding the 2008 financial crisis, rather than demonstrating a real concern for those Americans who have been hurting year after year for over 30 years. In contrast, Progressives and Donald Trump emphasized that NAFTA was largely responsible for growing unemployment and wage stagnation. Their focus on NAFTA’s negative effects may have been simplistic and missed explaining the role of automation, but were none-the-less appealing to Rust-Belt voters, who found empathy and promise.
In April 2016, during the democratic primary contest, we published an analysis of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, then contrasting her with Bernie Sanders. We described Clinton as having economic blind spots, somewhat based on her loyalty to President Obama, and some based on her political philosophy hardening during the Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 2016 she was half-hearted and unconvincing as she moved away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) largely because she had long held free-trade beliefs and was defensive about the downsides of the North American Free Trade Agreement, originated by President George HW Bush, and signed by Bill Clinton. Hillary focused more on the proximate issues surrounding the 2008 financial crisis, rather than demonstrating a real concern for those Americans who have been hurting year after year for over 30 years. In contrast, Progressives and Donald Trump emphasized that NAFTA was largely responsible for growing unemployment and wage stagnation. Their focus on NAFTA’s negative effects may have been simplistic and missed explaining the role of automation, but were none-the-less appealing to Rust-Belt voters, who found empathy and promise.
