Thursday, December 15, 2016

Real news is more to blame than fake news


For all their post-election "how-did-this-happen" questions, the media has largely ignored the fact that it completely refused to cover the Clinton campaign through anything but a lense of scandal. That's just how they treat the Clintons, and it's how they always treat the Clintons.

In a close presidential election, you can argue that almost anything changed the outcome, because almost anything that would have bumped up Clinton's numbers in a few key places would have. So everyone is free to pick their favorite issue with what happened: it was the Russian hacks, it was Comey, it was because Clinton didn't focus on the upper-Midwest, it was some failure with Clinton's GOTV efforts, it was fake news, it was Jill Stein, etc. etc. etc. You can argue for any of them, and maybe they all are right (that is, if  any one of those things had been different maybe the outcome would have been different too). Monday morning quarterbacking is fun!

But from where I sit, the biggest reason that Clinton lost was the unrelentingly bad coverage she received from start to finish. It ruled her out as an alternative for people who had serious reservations about Trump. Yes, I'm Monday morning quarterbacking like everyone else. But I'm fucking right, and all your other theories are crap.