Sign up today for an exclusive discount along with our 30-day GUARANTEE — Love us or leave, with your money back! Click here to become a part of our growing community and learn how to stop gambling with your investments. We will teach you to BE THE HOUSE — Not the Gambler!

Click here to see some testimonials from our members!

New Study Says Clinton’s War Support Cost Her Election

By Mark Melin. Originally published at ValueWalk.

Why did Clinton lose 2016 is a common question among pundits after Donald Trump’s – most will say Russia, Russia and Russia but there are other (more real reasons for people not named Louise Mensch) and one of them is pretty interesting as it gets little coverage in the media – mainly our endless wars in places like Afghanistan and ridiculous intervention in places like Libya– a new study says wars cost Clinton the white House

The reasons that US President Donald Trump prevailed over rival Hillary Clinton has involved much societal mashing of teeth. The primary reasons for the loss, including “trade policy, economic inequality, and emphasis on identity politics” might also share another powerful reason: war fatigue among communities disproportionately impacted by the pain. So says a study from Dr. Douglas Kriner of Boston University and Dr. Francis Shen University of Minnesota Law School. The pair looked at voting patterns the “forgotten” communities where area residents suffered higher percentages of war-related deaths.


By Alibaba2k16 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

They noted a correlation between a candidate’s war voting record as well as a consistent pattern of behavior that punished anyone who advocated for war regardless of political party. The relatively small number of military deaths since 2001 is dwarfed in the significant influence they had on society and likely tipped voter scales in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the study asserts.

In history, has a successful politician ever bragged he could shoot someone and still win?

Donald Trump is said to have a magical if not almost hypnotic grip over his core voters. His messaging during the campaign was so strong it tapped into a power that was almost unparalleled, spotlighted when he once bragged he could “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” and not lose voter support.

Trump’s message drilled deep into the psyche of disaffected voters on several levels. Rising income inequality over the previous two decades has been clearly documented, as once high paying manufacturing jobs with benefits could afford those without a college education a ticket to a middle-class rural lifestyle. These are the inconvenient emotions that, in part, Trump tapped. But here comes the study from Kriner and Shen, which says there was another powerful grip Trump found.

Wars Cost Clinton The White House

Turns out it’s not “all about the economy stupid”, Wars Cost Clinton The White House, says the study

While economics was part of the message that was on top of mind in a “forgotten” corner of the electorate, there was another important issue that the “chattering class” likewise didn’t recognize.

“In the post-election analysis of the 2016 cycle, discussion of war fatigue has been all but absent,” Kriner and Shen observe. “This oversight may plausibly be due to the fact that most American elites in the chattering class have not, at least in recent years, been directly affected by on-going conflicts. Children of elites are not as likely to serve and die in the Middle East, and elite communities are thus less likely to make this a point of conversation.”

The report, titled “Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?” points to a largely unrecognized “casualty gap.”

“The wartime experiences and direct exposure to war costs of residents of upstate and western New York, for example, may look very different from those living in the New York City suburbs,” pointing to one of many examples of elite conclaves around the US.

Correlation isn’t causation, but repeated patterns of behavior are often the point of trend validation. Here the report found “a significant and meaningful” correlation not only between a community’s rate of honoring fallen war heroes and support for Trump, but there was a pattern of such geographic regions voting against those advocating war.

File:OilProduction.Libya2010-2015.png

By US Energy Information Administration [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Punctuating performance drivers, the statistical modeling indicated that in three states key to Trump’s victory – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – the thin margin of victory could have been erased had Clinton been less hawkish. “All three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.”

Wars Cost Clinton The White House – Conflict is an emotional political issue that is rooted in patriotism

Unlike budget battles and other political issues that might rattle around Washington DC, war has a more emotional history.

To recognize the framing, the authors studied the period between October 10, 2001 and the 2016 presidential election, ultimately tracking relevant voting patterns. During this time nearly 7,000 Americans lost their lives in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a relatively small percentage given that near 55 million people that die each year, but the influence of their sorrow was deep.

To those looking at the world from a mathematical standpoint, the Iraq war alone cost the over $2 trillion. The return on investment is a power vacuum that has been filled by a terrorist threat the likes of which have never before been seen. After the initial “victory,” it remains unclear if either Iraq or Afghanistan have the capability to govern a safe territory without US military assistance. Could there have been a worse outcome?

Additionally, while Libya is not mentioned, Hillary Clinton was a known hawk on taking out Qaddafi and as anyone with a brain realized at the time that plan was a disaster and has led to the migrant wave hurting Europe.

File:Libyan Civil War.svg

By Ali Zifan (vectorized map) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

“While the American public initially rallied in support of both conflicts, public support soured as their human costs rose,” the report noted.

This study adds Clinton’s hawkish attitude as another of the potential subtle performance drivers in what was a very thin margin of electoral defeat and many third party voters for candidates such as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were attracted by the anti-war stance of the two runner ups.

It may be tough for Louise Mensch to stomach but Wars Cost Clinton The White House, not Putin.

Read the full study: Kriner, Douglas L. and Shen, Francis X., Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House? (June 19, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2989040

The post New Study Says Clinton’s War Support Cost Her Election appeared first on ValueWalk.

Sign up for ValueWalk’s free newsletter here.


Do you know someone who would benefit from this information? We can send your friend a strictly confidential, one-time email telling them about this information. Your privacy and your friend's privacy is your business... no spam! Click here and tell a friend!





You must be logged in to make a comment.
You can sign up for a membership or get a FREE Daily News membership or log in

Sign up today for an exclusive discount along with our 30-day GUARANTEE — Love us or leave, with your money back! Click here to become a part of our growing community and learn how to stop gambling with your investments. We will teach you to BE THE HOUSE — Not the Gambler!

Click here to see some testimonials from our members!