I don’t get to use that expression much. But it fits the 2016 election.
When Democrat Claire McCaskill (boy could the right have fun with the name like ‘Killary’) was running in a red state with an uphill battle, she cleverly picked the most extreme opponent.
By spending her ad money on phony ads ‘attacking’ the most radical right-wing opponent to make him more appealing, she helped him get nominated.
Then, as she planed, he was too much even for those voters and she won.
If she had lost, the most radical Republican would have been elected.
Hillary’s campaign did the same thing. They had a plan, as WikiLeaks reveals, to get the most radical Republican possible nominated, to improve her chances.
To do this they used their considerable media influence to ask the media to treat the named radicals with respect as serious candidates.
The short list was Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and some orange guy. And it basically worked.
You might recall Ben Carson briefly enjoyed a front running spot while awake, and Cruz and trump ended up the top two finishers.
But if Hillary lost, the gambit would leave us with the short list of the most radical candidates as president. WikiLeaks aptly called it a “political game of chicken”.
And she lost.
Which isn’t to say any of these 17 terrible candidates would have been better than terrible. But they wouldn’t have been the worst picks of the bunch.
This isn’t that much news, but we viewed it more as her ‘luck’ to get the worst opponent — rather than her campaign’s strategy to HELP him be the nominee.
Too clever by half. And now, the price.