But we knew that already, didn’t we?
The night before November 8th, a big part of the country wasn’t so sure. In fact, the night before the election the New York Times published an article that ranked Hillary Clinton with an 85% chance to win and Trump with a measly 15% chance. I’m not sure if these were the results of their blatant lies or their faulty polling.
Click here to see the charts the New York Times worked so hard on.
So what was it that Hillary did that was so wrong? (Besides ignoring cries for help from Benghazi, using a private email server and bleaching her own emails, and staying with Bill Clinton).
Well, according to a study that just came out, her campaign was one of the worst in years.
It turns out that advertising did matter in several important states where Trump had aired ads for weeks before Hillary aired any. In some states, she only aired ads one week before the election.
This study also showed that Hillary’s campaign was, and I quote, “devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential elections.”
Focusing on identity politics made Hillary’s “message” so blurry that no one even knew what she was droning on about anymore.
Take a look at this picture, which shows just how much time Hillary spent talking about herself compared to other presidential campaigns.
Read more at Heatstreet:
Published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the study found that one candidate in particular, Hillary Clinton, “almost ignored discussions of policy.” The study states the lack of advertising effectiveness “may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.”
Clinton, who was widely predicted to win by the mainstream media, suffered unexpected losses in states where she failed to air ads until the final week before the polls. In contrast, Trump advertised in these states (Wisconsin and Michigan) for weeks before he won.