Hillary’s failure is of her own, and of her inability to be better than Trump.
Hillary Clinton lost the race. As some onlookers have mentioned, she lost even though she was competing against Trump, an ‘insolence’ in the name of a candidate. How can one who has seen several electoral races, and has had some notable political experiences, fail against an unpopular and condemned opponent?
The first inquiry of her failure is to be sought in Clinton herself. She claimed to be pro-people and offer economic progress, and perpetuated politics of compassion and oneness, never wanting to dig deeper into the hearts of her voters and her haters. She never had a profound economic message for Americans. Trump’s campaign agenda was simpler. He was on his toes discussing economics and conveyed how he would create more jobs, build infrastructure, and reverse outgoing US investments. Clinton downgraded her intellectual energy by plotting too much personal attack of sexism and racism on Trump, which may have prompted many of her peripheral supporters to jump on Trump’s fence. Trump, on the other hand, invested his time to study the origins of discontent. He visited all the rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, that are home to numerous industrial workers desperate for change. Clinton, being egotistically confident of these states, clearly ignored them. How can a candidate leave out visits to the most economically important and politically essential states? Clinton did.
Clinton’s most puzzling, and rather alarming act was to keep her FBI out-of-office email investigation undiscussed, never clarifying on them. This could have been one of the reasons for the decline of voters’ confidence. Such response from voters also creates more misgivings on the type of candidate-claims that voters prefer to examine, as results have made us deduce.
Clinton was ahead in the national popular vote index, but her failure defied the guarantee that popularity leads to success. It is doing the right thing at the right time, irrespective and regardless of any criticism, which Trump ensured. He connected with those who had lost hope of better times, who were looking for meaningful progress, and he connected with the souls of those people who could see a change emerging. He could not only talk heart to heart with his supporters, but also assuredly pull Clinton-supporters to his side by talking practically, not just the unremarkable ‘compassion and peace’ talks.
Trump’s policy of banning Muslims was like an alarm clock to all voters, to consider him seriously. He devised a solution for illegal immigrants from Mexico, encroaching the entitled progress of US citizens, by building a wall at the Mexican border. He built confidence without any expectation of winning, because he was attempting to connect with the ones who demanded the most, and whose demands aligned with his policy intents. And those who voted for him saw him as a CEO of the country, and believed he would assuredly bring in change by governing better than Clinton. He is accused of creating a white supremacy, representing majority of his voters. But don’t all the whites have the right to their decisions in voting?
Clinton’s email investigation and her hesitation to discuss it openly, reinforced her identity as a liar among her voters, because she never accepted her involvement and was blinded by the popularity status. Although Clinton blames her defeat on the timing of FBI directors reinstating her email investigation, her defeat and the simultaneous victory of a man whose past-life notoriety is well documented, only complicates the calculations of popularity and ground-work politics.