Why Americans Skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s Trustworthiness

The 2016 presidential election saw a significant divide between supporters and skeptics of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Many voters distrusted her, some due to a perception that she was a criminal and others due to political biases. This skepticism, while rooted in different beliefs, poses important questions about trust in political figures and the electoral process in the United States.

Perceived Criminality and Usage of a Private Server

One of the primary reasons some Americans, particularly anti-establishment voices, mistrusted Hillary Clinton was her alleged involvement with a private server for classified material. Crooks, as one prominent personality claimed, felt that Clinton's actions were illegal and deserved imprisonment. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence supporting these claims, such perceptions significantly impacted the public’s trust in Clinton.

The Role of the Electoral College

It is important to note that the majority of voters trusted Clinton in the 2016 election. However, the United States does not elect its presidents through a direct popular vote, but instead through the electoral college. In this system, electors from each state and Washington D.C. cast their votes for the president. The candidate with the most votes wins the state and all the electoral votes.

This system sometimes leads to electoral outcomes that do not align with the popular vote, as seen in the 2016 election. For those who did not trust Clinton, there were two main categories:

Republican Voters and Propaganda

Republican voters, often subjected to a decades-long campaign of misinformation, perceived Clinton and her husband Bill as left-wing socialists and alleged evil, Satanic, pedophiles. These narratives, though largely unfounded and considered hate speech, had a significant impact on the voting behavior of many conservative voters.

Democrats and Independents Perceived as Corporate Shills

Additionally, there were Democrats and independents who mistrusted Clinton, primarily due to her perceived alignment with corporate interests. They believed her goal was to benefit large corporations at the expense of lower and middle-income Americans. However, Clinton and her husband Bill had a mixed record on this. While Bill Clinton was pro-business, he also had policies aimed at helping lower and middle-income Americans. Clinton's policies, while sometimes aimed at corporate interests, did not entirely adhere to this stereotype. Some gifted Clinton the label of an "evil corporatist sellout," which further alienated her from these voters.

A Missed Opportunity for Democratic Victory

Despite Clinton’s best efforts and despite claims from critics that she did not deserve the vote of "true Democrats" or "true progressives," a small margin of votes could have significantly changed the outcome.

For example, in a few key states, a few thousand additional votes for Clinton could have brought her to victory. In this scenario, President Trump may not have been elected, leading to a very different political landscape. Without a Trump presidency, there would have been no false accusations of a stolen 2020 election, no January 6 riot, and no false attacks on democratic processes and election integrity.

The Supreme Court and Policy Debacles

An undemocratic judiciary appointing far-right judges also led to significant policy shifts, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade and numerous other policy disasters that underlined the importance of electing a president who champions representative democracy and election integrity.

Conclusion

Voting based on a circumspect view of what is best for the country is a serious and critical endeavor. It is crucial to consider both the personal and political implications of one's vote. In 2016, while Hillary Clinton may not have been everyone's first choice, she was, in my opinion, the best choice in light of the alternatives.