Clinton Ran A Good Campaign


This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.


This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

No Message

When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don’t understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.


Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

Political Connections

Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

Last Word

I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.



Emailgate and the Dictator Within


If you are politically active you will have an opinion about the private server of Hillary Clinton. It has been all over the news and I am not going to waste time summarizing it. I am guessing it mostly falls along party lines. If you are a Republican or lean that way you think she compromised vital national security information and if you are a Democrat, well you probably think the same thing but don’t think that it is a big issue. Maybe you go so far as to say none of her documents were classified or it was not at the time. As always I am here to offer the red pill to those who want the truth.


Ready for today’s dose? If you are discussing the classification of information and what rules where there at what specific time Clinton has already won. In reality the classification, convenience, and content of the emails do not matter. The fact that a private server maintained by her own technicians guarded by a law firm she employs is all you need to condemn her.

The official story is that she wanted to use the private server because she was technologically challenged and had difficulty changing devices. If you have difficulty using computers, smart phones, or things of that nature then you would use the things that come with the device itself. The last thing you want to do is to install new software and fiddle with settings. Suppose you have no idea how technology works and want to blog. Would you use Word Press, Blogger, or another site that is already configured? Or would you go to the trouble of making your own site?

Well all we have is her official story and no source tells us otherwise. What “unintended consequences” does the email server have? This may tell us what the primary motivation is for making the server. ALL INFORMATION IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF CLINTON. Let that sink in for a bit. Every piece of communication she has is under her control. Not under government control as in the case of most other government officials. Not under third party control as with the officials who unwisely decided to use yahoo accounts. But under her control.

We have a system of government which demands that the people hold officials accountable for what they do in office. Yet in this case Clinton has made it so that there is no way anyone could hold her accountable for her time in office. If FOIA requests were sent to the state department they would say they have no emails related to the subject, and rightly so. All the emails were with Clinton. If the FOIA request were given to Clinton herself, well then the emails would end up deleted. As a nation we already have very few ways to keep our elected officials in check, yet here we have one of the most powerful politicians in the country actively making sure that we have no way to hold her accountable. The classification and all those other details don’t matter. That is a smokescreen to confuse you. The existence of the server itself is the most problematic thing. If you think this is acceptable ask yourself how our government would look if we allowed every single government official to have their own private servers.


Throughout this campaign you have seen Trump described as a dictator. Whether it is comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini or any other strongman. Ask yourself what is the tie that binds all dictators? They want no accountability for their actions. They make sure that regular citizens cannot question their actions. They go about this in a variety of ways outright murder for some, coopting the press for others, and rigging the entire political process for the rest. Whatever method they choose the end result is the same. They make it as hard as possible for the populace to question their actions and hold them accountable for them.

Let us take a look at the candidates. Trump has taken almost every available opportunity to meet with the press. From press conferences, to sit down interviews, to taking questions after his rallies. He has made sure that he is accessible to anyone who has any questions for him. It has not always been with friendly reporters either. He accidentally called into Charlie Sykes show, a prominent Never Trumper. He could have just hung up when Sykes said he was Never Trump, yet he still chose to do the interview. In fact the few instances where he has not been transparent such as in the case of his tax returns, off the record interviews, or close door meetings with officials like Ryan are the exception not the rule. When was the last time you saw a dictator allow a member of the opposition press question him without having the questions prepared before hand?

Clinton as we have mentioned has her own private server to make sure that only she has access to crucial information about her time as secretary of state. She rarely does any interviews, has not had a press conference in six months, and in the rare occasion she does town halls or other interactive events the questions are all approved by her staff beforehand. She has made it a strategy to limit the number of opportunites anyone has to question her on her actions. The state department seems to be taking the same stance as her declaring that her emails regarding the TPP will only be released after the election and that all the information regarding her emails would take 75 years to release. I will not even get into her speeches. Any situation where she has actually invited people to question her, and I confess I cannot think of one now, are the exceptions rather than the rule.

One person discusses matters with the press all the time. Newspapers, websites, television media, and even allows interviews with opposition media. The other person restricts all contact with the fourth estate and sets up servers to hide her actions from the public. Which is the dictator?