Why everyone was wrong

Why everyone was wrong

I was talking to a #NeverTrump radio host who will remain anonymous (unless he wants to chime in) when I said I put it at 70/30 in favor of Trump. As much as I’d like to pat myself on the back, my prediction was wrong. I told him my reasoning was an October surprise that would bring her down. It didn’t. With hindsight being not quite 20/20 when it comes to politics, I now understand why I was so wrong.

Let’s look at the four things that nobody considered enough when making predictions. If we had, it’s now pretty obvious that Hillary would lose.


There couldn’t have been a worse time for the announcements of rate hikes to go out. The economy is always the most important factor for voters and when they are going to lose more money in a way associated with a candidate, it hurts.


Whether you love him or despise him (there are few who are in the middle), Barack Obama is a very likable person. He’s charismatic at the least and magnetic to liberals. Compared to Hillary, he sucks all of the joy away from her. She’s the opposite of him in so many ways even if they share their liberalism. Even diehard Democrats had to consider her a downgrade.

Underestimating/overestimating passions

Both parties relied on passions. Sadly, this was the first election in modern history when the passions being tapped into were negative. Democrats relied on passionate hatred for Trump and Republicans relied on passionate hatred of Hillary in order to get out the vote. Hillary actually had an advantage in that regard; more people passionately dislike Trump. However, Trump’s actual supporters were much more passionate than Hillary’s, particularly in the states she needed to win: Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Blown media bias

The best thing the media could have done if they wanted Hillary to win was to embrace Trump. By being so overtly opposed to him, they thought they were doing the right thing. They neglected to remember that the media in America is disliked almost as much as politicians. It was like a Chinese finger trap. The harder they pulled, the tighter Trump’s grip got.

There’s a lot to digest, but we’ll keep it short and bittersweet for now. As someone who disliked both candidates fairly equally, I’m neither delighted nor discouraged by Trump’s win. Of course, I’m at least a little pleased by Hillary’s loss, if only to poke fun at HuffPo’s 98% chance of a Democratic win.

JD Rucker

JD Rucker is Editor of this site as well as Soshable, a Federalist Christian Blog. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and co-founder of the Federalist Party. Find him on Twitter or Facebook.

  1. There was no “Democratic” win. There was no “Democrat” win either.

    I noticed on the Illinois Ballot that the candidates were referred to as “Republican” or “Democratic” (not “Democrat”). I complained to the polling judges that “Democratic” is misleading and incorrect usage. It misleads people by outright stating that to choose the Democrat candidates is to vote “Democratic”.

    Please correct the language in your article (particulary the last paragraph) as it will just make it that much harder to deprogram people and their misconceptions about our political system and political parties.

    I’m quite sure you did not mean to imply that a “Democrat” win is synonymous with a “Democratic” win (as opposed to a “dictatorial” win or a “monarchical” win).

    Thank you.

    1. Thank you for the comment, Ed. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. Members of the party are Democrats. While I appreciate your fervor to deprogram people, as a Constitutional Republic, we should take pride in our willingness to not play the liberal game of provoking false narratives. Instead, we should take the high road and call things by their proper name. An adult male is called a man. Abortion is abortion, not an action of reproductive rights. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. We have better strategies to employ than taking issue with the potential psychological effects of word association within the proper name of an organization.

  2. I saw your “Obama” take, JD, and I have to say I would take an opposite view.
    I actually believe Obama campaigning for Clinton was a bad move. As much as he may be considered “more likeable” than Hillary, at least as seen through the liberal lense, most of the rest of the country was probably hardened in their choice to vote for Trump when this scorched earth divider-in-chief hit the trail on her behalf. Even me; a McMullin voter here in Texas, came close to choosing Trump just to satisfy sticking it to the lame duck POTUS on his way out the door. Everything the man-child touches turns to excrement, so I just don’t think it helped her at all.

    1. I think you are both right. For conservatives who were very reluctant to vote for Trump, Obama’s association with Clinton may have given them a bit of a push. But while you are talking about the Obama effect on conservatives, JD is talking about the affect on Liberals. So both can be right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana