The medium is the message

In his 1964 book Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “The medium is the message.” His point is this. It is the medium that carries the message, not the content of the message, that is significant.

When it comes to understanding Hillary Clinton’s humiliating defeat in New Hampshire, I think you need to consider McLuhan’s statement.

It wasn’t the content of Hillary’s message, but the medium carrying it that matters. Hillary Clinton was the message. And voters simply were not interested.

I tried to listen to Hillary’s concession speech from last night, but honestly, it was too awful to endure. She was very, very angry. She was dour, bitter, shell-shocked and oozing confused outrage. It probably didn’t help that she dressed like a Catholic School principal delivering a stern lecture on modesty to an indifferent student body.

Hillary’s problem wasn’t that she couldn’t get her message out; Hillary’s problem is Hillary.

Sanders’ rising popularity was interpreted by Hillary as a need to move further Left — to embrace the socialist talking points inexplicably drawing young people to the decrepit old Sanders. But it didn’t work.

Why?

Because the medium is the message.

One look at Hillary Clinton is all voters needed to know. They don’t care about her claims of wanting to be a champion. They aren’t listening to her message of “income equality” or “making the rich pay their fair share.” They can’t get past the packaging. The truth is, even if Hillary chose to offer voters a more centrist alternative to Bernie’s flagrant socialism, she still would have been trounced.

It wasn’t the message Hillary chose. It was the medium carrying the message. It was Hillary.

The medium is the message. And the voters clearly do not like the medium.

Yes, there were plenty of Democrats in New Hampshire who preferred a more centrist alternative to the radical Sanders. But yesterday, that alternative wasn’t Hillary. Instead, I believe, that alternative to Sanders was either Donald Trump or John Kasich who, in any other Presidential election cycle, would be running as Democrats.

Because of that, Hillary never had a chance in New Hampshire. None. She failed to offer herself as an idealogical alternative to Sanders, opting instead to mimic his shtick. But even if she had, she still wouldn’t have had a chance. Because the medium is the message.

Hillary is a cracked jug. No matter what the quality of wine you pour into it, a cracked jug makes a lousy container.

The true measure of just how disastrous Hillary’s floundering campaign is will come on February 27th in South Carolina. Trust me on this one, South Carolina is make or break for Hillary Clinton. If she can’t win against a Northeast Socialist in a southern state where blacks make up a large majority of Democrat voters, she has zero hope of getting the nomination.

And it won’t matter what kind of staffing shake-up happens. It won’t matter if she fires everyone on the campaign and hires all new consultants or communications directors. It won’t matter if she decides to pivot to the center or double-down on a faux populist socialist message.

The message is irrelevant.

Because when it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the medium is the only message voters hear.

—

If you like the work at Patriot Retort, please consider contributing

Hit the tip jar DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!