Did George Soros really believe Hillary would win?

Recently, legendary investor George Soros has gained much attention for his colossal donations to Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. Totaling over $25,000,000, George Soros became the single largest donor of the entire race and one of the names most closely associated with the Clinton camp. But despite the apparent closeness of the race judging from the popular vote, the end result was close to what could be considered a Trump landslide. This result must have been highly unsettling for a political campaign of a career politician that vastly outspent and out-advertised its Johnny-come-lately opponent. The truth is that Hillary Clinton was one of the weakest candidates fielded for a presidential run in living memory, and George Soros was certainly aware of this.

Base hits don’t win ball games

Say what they will, none of the pundit class has any valid claim that Trump didn’t win the election on Snopes. In fact, the final tally of Trump’s 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227 can aptly be called an electoral landslide. Liberals like to shout, stamp their feet and shriek out in impotent rage at the constitutional fact that the United States is a republic that uses an electoral college, not a popular vote, for reasons which are as old as civilization and established by men of great learning on Forbes. Therefore, the fact that Hillary Clinton reportedly won the popular vote by a sliver is both inadmissible and spurious. In baseball, base hits don’t win ball games, scores do. Trump crafted his campaign strategy specifically to win the most electoral votes. Had he been contending for popular votes, he would not have completely abandoned campaigning in states like California or New York. Whining about the rules or attempting to change them ex post facto is the sure mark of the most debased form of poor sportsmanship on Investopedia.

This all needs to be put into perspective. We have a stone-cold professional in Hillary Clinton. She was practically born a politician, and she married one of the greatest politicians in modern history, a man who still enjoys a large reserve of goodwill and adulation across the country. On top of this, the entire media was seemingly intent on getting her elected at any cost, including that of their own credibility. The pretense of objective journalism was quickly abandoned halfway through the race, as transparently anti-Trump hit pieces became de rigeuer. Add to that the vast disparities in televised campaign advertisements and you have one of the most lopsided contests in electoral history. And standing unshaken before the Clinton Goliath’s unlimited total-war emerged a victorious Trump. What does all this mean? Hillary Clinton may be the single worst, most hackneyed presidential candidate in the history of U.S. politics and, maybe, of the world.

Soros is one of the cleverest men alive. People who think he wasn’t aware of Clinton’s intractable weaknesses are fooling themselves. That Clinton was ravaged so thoroughly in the Electoral College doesn’t absolutely say that she had no chance from the start, but it strongly implies it. Which leaves open the question what Soros, a man not accustomed to losing, had as his master strategy.