Ukrainian expert named reasons for Clinton's loss
US presidential candidate from the Democratic Party Hillary Clinton lost the election due to high anti-rating and due to a very large demand for changes in the country that she did not personify.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
Director of political programs at the Gorshenin Institute Evgeny Kurmashov said this at a press briefing at the Gorshenin Institute.
Kurmashov emphasized that Clinton had a unique amount of resources. “The figure of Hillary Clinton has long been perceived as the undisputed favorite; the stakes on her were incredibly large, for two reasons. First, the tools that the Democratic candidate had were simply unprecedented. Secondly, in the battle of anti-ratings, most observers were inclined to believe that Trump’s anti-rating would still be a decisive factor than Clinton’s anti-rating,” the expert emphasized.
Almost 80% of all media coverage worked for the Democratic candidate to one degree or another. It had very strong volunteer and campaign staffs that were able to run very effective door-to-door campaigns, as well as mobilize voters in the lead-up to Election Day.
Kurmashov also recalled such an element as the factor of electoral geography. “In US elections, there are so-called red states that always vote for the Republican candidate, and there are blue states that always vote for the Democratic candidate. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton began their campaigns in somewhat unequal positions,” he noted.
The number of people who live in blue states is much greater than the number of people living in states that vote for the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton, given these solid Democratic states, entered the campaign with about 205-207 electoral votes. Donald Trump started it with 162-163 votes. The candidates were forced to select the remaining electors in the so-called swing states, which give votes to different candidates in different elections.
“As we see, Trump did this job better and more efficiently. Hillary Clinton performed critically poorly in swing states. In American terminology, there is such a thing as a must-win state; of these states, Hillary won only Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire. Moreover, two of them are by a minimal margin. The key losses were Ohio, which Barack Obama won twice and Hillary Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton, won twice. Hillary lost North Carolina, the most important state. Lost Florida, lost such a key state as Pennsylvania, although the amount of effort, resources, and finances that were thrown at this state was unprecedented. And they also lost the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, where Clinton had a more than 10% lead over Trump two months before the election. No one believed that she could lose such a large and impressive reserve,” he said.
Kurmashov believes that Clinton’s agenda of no alternative, which was imposed by her headquarters over the course of a year, ultimately played a cruel joke on her, since a significant part of her supporters turned out to be demotivated, which ultimately reduced the turnout of her fans.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.