But, even accepting those assertions at face value, is perceived aloofness the cause of losing, or is it just part of being painted as a loser?
Well, I think the answer to that is yes and no. Losing is about failing to connect with enough of the voters in the right places. it’s important and closely linked to your later point
The fact that presidential elections are always close to 50-50
Messages are adjusted and coalitions built to split the electorate. A lot of populist messaging and you lose donors and a lot of “we are on the right track” talk and people hurting head out the back. Everything you do to bring one voter in can push another voter out. So after elections it’s a natural think to acknowledge that you you were too cautious on the bringing voters in the front door by connecting with their interests. Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and lots of other demographic tropes were developed after losses to figure out how to appeal to more people next time. Those other candidates slipped out of the public eye, admitted their failures and their banishment was part of their party adjusting their candidates and their messages. Think about the next candidates in line after most of those losses. They were different and brought adapted messages and
Clinton is being obstructionist over ego in my opinion.
strongly suggests that it’s not decided by a static comparison of what each candidate brings to the table on day one. If you think about it, it really couldn’t be.
Yeah, exactly. The question really isn’t about Clinton losing. It’s about her not winning by 20 points. Donald Trump is the least qualified, least presentable, least intelligent candidates in a century if not ever and he ran a train-wreck of a campaign. I think there is a strong argument that she was too concerned about being careful over relatable and too concerned about donors over appealing to regular people. Russia and Comey certainly were factors but why is it that seemed to have no effect in California while Clinton lost in the the rust belt and midwest?
