This article in The Washington Post analyzes the implications of losses in some of the most important states come the November elections. The subtitle of the article states that these losses are “spurring general-election fears.” I don’t believe this is the downside of Obama’s strategy though. I think the downside is that the strategy attracts writers like the author of this article who casts doubt into the minds of millions by declaring to them, “You are afraid.”
People rant and rail against the press all the time for shaping the minds of voters. They’re like modern brain washers, only no one seems to realize the gravity of the impact they’re making on the general public. People get almost all their knowledge of the events outside their homes from the news. Likewise, their own reality is shaped accordingly; they have no reason to believe most of that which is stated confidently to them might not be true.
To be fair, they’ve been casting unnecessary doubt on Hillary’s campaign for months now. Both candidates have been in a near-tie since the beginning, and yet writers keep “unintentionally” insisting that people should or should not vote for someone based on possible outcomes of strategy. These journalists are pulling conclusions from their behinds, publishing to the masses, and resultantly causing the conclusions to be just one step closer to coming true.
And why complain about strategy anyway? We will see whether or not strategies is working or not based on which candidates are doing better than the others. If assuming certain strategies will work better in the future is only going to affect the way the strategy is working now, I’d say the whole process is better just left alone. Let the people just vote for once.