The Best of the Worst: 2016 Presidential Election Predictions
By Evan Lips | December 31, 2016, 12:48 EST
“Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” — Count Galeazzo Ciano
The Russians did it, right?
With President Barack Obama’s administration levying sanctions and ordering the outright dismissal of 35 Russian diplomats on Thursday, it’s arguably clear that the outgoing commander-in-chief has an opinion as to the “why” and “how” fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election.
President Obama expels 35 🇷🇺 diplomats in Cold War deja vu. As everybody, incl 🇺🇸 people, will be glad to see the last of this hapless Adm. pic.twitter.com/mleqA16H8D
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) December 29, 2016
Obama said he has ordered American intelligence agencies to produce a “complete review” of its findings prior to the start of President-elect Donald Trump’s term in the Oval Office on Jan. 20.
But for how long was the Obama White House aware of such allegations? And at what point did his intelligence team brief him on such perceived threats?
Trump:
If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016
A look back at the timeline shows that the first allegations surfaced publicly in June, when the Washington Post published an explosive report linking “Russian government hackers” to a breach of security inside the Democratic National Committee.
The allegation barely caused a ripple — on June 14, the day the Washington Post published its report, Clinton held a 5.5-point lead according to the RealClearPolitics’s average. Polling averages finally went Trump’s way the day before Clinton’s official nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
And then they didn’t.
Clinton never trailed in anything until it truly mattered on Nov. 8, the day polling data gave way to actual results at the ballot.
Some media outlets did not take her loss well:
This has to be one of the most cruel, petty, self-absorbed things I’ve ever read online. Shame on you @markos https://t.co/OOubCQI6wI
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 13, 2016
Now, with Trump’s inauguration looming, Clinton’s defeated team has pointed its collective finger squarely at Russia as the reason for her loss.
Others took their ire out on various Clinton-embedded campaign reporters:
I wrote 233 stories on this election. My bet, @joanwalsh, is you don’t even know which of my ideas you ripped off and repeated on TV. https://t.co/KYgq2oivYm
— Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) December 6, 2016
So…. what’s to explain for Clinton’s team (and the media) waiting until after Election Day to truly call out the Russians?
Maybe it’s because almost every major political pundit (and television personality) had already called the race in her favor before the first ballots were cast.
Maybe.
Behold, the best of the best … errr … worst of the worst, when it came to smugly predicting the unpredictable, in no specific order:
1. Amanda Marcotte, Salon.com:
Well that take didn’t age well pic.twitter.com/91VDXAh0zv
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 18, 2016
2. Ross Douthat, New York Times:
TRUMP HAD A CEILING HE ALWAYS HAD A CEILING I TOLD YOU HE HAD A CEILING I TOLD YOU I TOLD YOU I TOLD YOU YOU LAUGHED BUT I TOLD YOU
— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) February 2, 2016
3. Drew Magary, Deadspin:
This still gets me…every damn time. And yeah, that tweet is gone. pic.twitter.com/mA0BWztTBE
— Evan Lips (@evanmlips) December 29, 2016
4. Chris Cillizza, Washington Post:
This word cloud explains why Donald Trump is likely to lose tomorrow https://t.co/VjVrGaWyl0 pic.twitter.com/HmwZUcjhW3
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) November 7, 2016
Dear Republicans: I’ll just leave this here.https://t.co/dAvGjyVpM9
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) November 4, 2016
Hillary Clinton has enough electoral votes to win the White House in final Fix map https://t.co/VNpegYCs1j pic.twitter.com/0GMdHA1Y3a
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) November 7, 2016
5. Frank Luntz, Republican pollster:
In case I wasn’t clear enough from my previous tweets:
Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. #ElectionNight
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) November 8, 2016
6. Dana Milbank, Washington Post:
Predicted Trump would lose GOP nomination, promised to “eat his column” if wrong — a man of his word.
Haute-type cuisine: Eating my Trump column 5/12 with @tomsietsema and Chef @VictorAlbisu. Help choose menu here: https://t.co/oBicbkzVDs
— Dana Milbank (@Milbank) May 5, 2016
But that didn’t stop Milbank from slamming Trump and Trump’s supporters. It was Milbank who defended Clinton’s “deplorables” comment, claiming in a Sept. 12 column that — yes — “half of Trump’s supporters are racist.” Less than a week before Election Day, it was also Milbank who attempted to scare readers into voting — not for Clinton, but against Trump — with his “first 100 horrific days of a Trump presidency” column.
Milbank obviously didn’t learn from his column dinner, as this was his hot take just days ahead of Nov. 7:
Trump, facing near-certain defeat, tries to salvage his business interests. It may be too late. https://t.co/AsrZwUzH8G
— Dana Milbank (@Milbank) October 27, 2016
7. John Oliver, HBO’s Last Week Tonight, August 22:
“It seems that you have two really bad options here… if you keep going, you’re going to spend the next 11 weeks ramping up hatred in speeches, injecting poison into the American bloodstream it took multi-generations to remove, and denying the country the contest of ideas that the presidential campaign should actually be …”
8. Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine:
Remember when the Electoral College mattered? @jonathanchait pic.twitter.com/FSfXloSTnC
— Evan Lips (@evanmlips) December 29, 2016
9. Stephen Colbert, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” CBS:
“That is right — Donald Trump lost money on casinos. You know what they say — the house always loses.”
10. Mike Murphy, GOP strategist and analyst for NBC:
Among other things, Latinos are big reason why Trump is gonna lose FL and end this caper early Tues night. Cable TV hype nonetheless… https://t.co/x5ak3wSDzo
— mike murphy (@murphymike) November 5, 2016
I’ve believed in data for 30 years in politics and data died tonight. I could not have been more wrong about this election.
— mike murphy (@murphymike) November 9, 2016
TWO HONORABLE (local) MENTIONS:
A) Matt Viser, Deputy Washington Chief, Boston Globe:
BREAKING: Donald Trump’s chances at winning the election.
— Matt Viser (@mviser) October 8, 2016
B) Peter Ubertaccio, Stonehill College, associate professor for political science, director, Martin Institute for Law & Society, WGBH’s MassPoliticalProfs:
His path to defeat is pretty clear https://t.co/19GJ1N7xQF #TrumpThreat #Trump2016 #ClintonKaine
— Peter Ubertaccio (@ProfessorU) August 10, 2016
NOTABLE:
Here’s what NewBostonPost’s Jennifer Braceras had to say in February about the 2016 presidential election:
Worth an end-of-2016 revisit, courtesy of @MAHockeyMom — https://t.co/4Pf8yd6u3l — via @NewBostonPost pic.twitter.com/08sQxYycaG
— Evan Lips (@evanmlips) December 29, 2016
It’s a long and distinguished list…so we’re sure we missed a few. Got any suggestions? Send ’em over via email to [email protected] and we’ll update this as we see fit.