Hillary Clinton as a policy wonk? Nope, Chris Cillizza, not even close

Chris Cillizza argues that Hillary Clinton lost her presidential bid because voters preferred the emotionalism of Donald Trump over her sober, well reasoned, analytical policy offerings.  What baloney.

He writes:

She ran a campaign larded with policy papers, with serious thoughts about serious things, with poll-tested stump speech lines designed to give some to everyone but all to no one.

Trump just, well, said stuff. His policies were virtually non-existent. The policies he did have – build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it, for example – were impractical. His campaign was entirely tonal; it was all about tone. He said things forcefully! He was tough! He was going to make America great again!

Although it's not an entirely bad analysis, it certainly leaves out a lot of things, such as voter disgust with her pay-to-play corruption; voter disgust with her impunity, starting with her unpunished illegal private server; and voter dread at the thought of Bill Clinton horndogging it around at the White House again, this time with nothing to keep him busy.  It also didn't help that she called voters "deplorables"; showed significant evidence on the campaign trail of health problems with non-credible denials; and had the media, the universities and Hollywood in the tank for her.

The big problem with Cillizza's argument is that he claimed that Hillary is a nerd, a policy wonk, someone just too smart to be president, being "smartest woman in America" and all.

While she spent time on "carefully thought-out policies" and "painstakingly built coalitions," he was just throwing red meat to people starving for it.

What horse hockey.  Has Cillizza ever been to Hillary Clinton's website, where all her "carefully thought out policies" were housed for the consumption of voters?  Or being a member of the Hillary-cheering media, did he just mean her "private positions," which she disclosed to Goldman Sachs but not to her voters?

Hillary had no serious or well thought out policies.  What she was selling to voters was "meet the first female president."  What she was asking was "Vote for me because I'm a woman.  Let's make history!"  It was a campaign characterized by pantsuit dances.  And in her upcoming memoir, she wailed in outrage wondering why more females didn't vote for her.  That was Hillary at her most positive.  Her other campaign theme was "I hate Trump; vote for me because I hate Trump."  That attitude was so strong that it lingers with voters today as the main characteristic of the entire Democratic Party. 

Voters weren't buying it.  Trump could be uneven with his policy proposals, but he did have them.  They could be stated in one sentence, which is the best proof to voters that he had them: "Build the wall.  Cut taxes.  Restore U.S. power abroad."  It's also the best indicator of even having policies. 

Hillary had none of this.  A trip to her website shows little more than vague status quo platitudes, not well thought out policy positions as claimed by Cillizza.  To take just one example, get a load of her Obamacare policy position:

As your president, I want to build on the progress we've made. I'll do more to bring down health care costs for families, ease burdens on small businesses, and make sure consumers have the choices they deserve. And frankly, it is finally time for us to deal with the skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs, and particularly runaway prescription drug prices.

Nothing but preserving the status quo with vague promises of making it "work" better.  Read the whole thing, and it contains nothing more than the content of the initial statement.  None of her soggy policy prescriptives comes with any specifics about how to make it work better, and that's because the only real way to ensure affordable health care is to get the government out of it.  Bring down health care costs?  Ensure choice?  What's she going to do, order hospitals to bring costs down?  Market forces and the structure of the law, which demands larded up policies without consumer choice and rewards buying health insurance only when absolutely necessary, are two of the reasons why health care costs under the Obamacare program are skyrocketing.  Hillary has no sense of this because she has no sense of market forces, either from the buyer side or from the seller side.  She just wants to magically command paradise for all.

No wonder she didn't win.  Her policy prescriptions were vague and never thought out; they pretty much never existed.  She wasn't about policy wonkery; she was about identity politics.  Trump was the opposite.  He did have specific policy proposals (and the more he focused on them during the campaign, thanks to the nudging of Kellyanne Conway, the higher he went in the polls).  Hillary had no substance whatsoever.  She wanted to keep the Obama status quo, reward the left-wing activist groups by driving their agendas further, and throw slop to the voters with pablum-dreck disguised as policy positions.  Her positions were so badly defined and poorly thought out that it was obvious she thought she was writing them for deplorables.  Well, she was, and the result was what it was.

Chris Cillizza argues that Hillary Clinton lost her presidential bid because voters preferred the emotionalism of Donald Trump over her sober, well reasoned, analytical policy offerings.  What baloney.

He writes:

She ran a campaign larded with policy papers, with serious thoughts about serious things, with poll-tested stump speech lines designed to give some to everyone but all to no one.

Trump just, well, said stuff. His policies were virtually non-existent. The policies he did have – build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it, for example – were impractical. His campaign was entirely tonal; it was all about tone. He said things forcefully! He was tough! He was going to make America great again!

Although it's not an entirely bad analysis, it certainly leaves out a lot of things, such as voter disgust with her pay-to-play corruption; voter disgust with her impunity, starting with her unpunished illegal private server; and voter dread at the thought of Bill Clinton horndogging it around at the White House again, this time with nothing to keep him busy.  It also didn't help that she called voters "deplorables"; showed significant evidence on the campaign trail of health problems with non-credible denials; and had the media, the universities and Hollywood in the tank for her.

The big problem with Cillizza's argument is that he claimed that Hillary is a nerd, a policy wonk, someone just too smart to be president, being "smartest woman in America" and all.

While she spent time on "carefully thought-out policies" and "painstakingly built coalitions," he was just throwing red meat to people starving for it.

What horse hockey.  Has Cillizza ever been to Hillary Clinton's website, where all her "carefully thought out policies" were housed for the consumption of voters?  Or being a member of the Hillary-cheering media, did he just mean her "private positions," which she disclosed to Goldman Sachs but not to her voters?

Hillary had no serious or well thought out policies.  What she was selling to voters was "meet the first female president."  What she was asking was "Vote for me because I'm a woman.  Let's make history!"  It was a campaign characterized by pantsuit dances.  And in her upcoming memoir, she wailed in outrage wondering why more females didn't vote for her.  That was Hillary at her most positive.  Her other campaign theme was "I hate Trump; vote for me because I hate Trump."  That attitude was so strong that it lingers with voters today as the main characteristic of the entire Democratic Party. 

Voters weren't buying it.  Trump could be uneven with his policy proposals, but he did have them.  They could be stated in one sentence, which is the best proof to voters that he had them: "Build the wall.  Cut taxes.  Restore U.S. power abroad."  It's also the best indicator of even having policies. 

Hillary had none of this.  A trip to her website shows little more than vague status quo platitudes, not well thought out policy positions as claimed by Cillizza.  To take just one example, get a load of her Obamacare policy position:

As your president, I want to build on the progress we've made. I'll do more to bring down health care costs for families, ease burdens on small businesses, and make sure consumers have the choices they deserve. And frankly, it is finally time for us to deal with the skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs, and particularly runaway prescription drug prices.

Nothing but preserving the status quo with vague promises of making it "work" better.  Read the whole thing, and it contains nothing more than the content of the initial statement.  None of her soggy policy prescriptives comes with any specifics about how to make it work better, and that's because the only real way to ensure affordable health care is to get the government out of it.  Bring down health care costs?  Ensure choice?  What's she going to do, order hospitals to bring costs down?  Market forces and the structure of the law, which demands larded up policies without consumer choice and rewards buying health insurance only when absolutely necessary, are two of the reasons why health care costs under the Obamacare program are skyrocketing.  Hillary has no sense of this because she has no sense of market forces, either from the buyer side or from the seller side.  She just wants to magically command paradise for all.

No wonder she didn't win.  Her policy prescriptions were vague and never thought out; they pretty much never existed.  She wasn't about policy wonkery; she was about identity politics.  Trump was the opposite.  He did have specific policy proposals (and the more he focused on them during the campaign, thanks to the nudging of Kellyanne Conway, the higher he went in the polls).  Hillary had no substance whatsoever.  She wanted to keep the Obama status quo, reward the left-wing activist groups by driving their agendas further, and throw slop to the voters with pablum-dreck disguised as policy positions.  Her positions were so badly defined and poorly thought out that it was obvious she thought she was writing them for deplorables.  Well, she was, and the result was what it was.

RECENT VIDEOS