Strategy will always prevail, even in winning a presidency.

So, the election is over and the decision has been made. We now know who will be the president of the United States for the next 4 years. Regardless if it is a decision you agree with, it is a reality that we all must face. Many are in disbelief that the election resulted in the way that it did. Let’s look back and try to make sense of why the election went the way that it did. We all notice and the candidates and their stance on certain issues. However, I belief that those behind the candidates are truly the ones who can make or break a candidate and springboard them into the white house.

Before the candidates begin their presidential campaign run they must first select a team of individuals to help with their campaign. Arguably the most important part of campaign is the candidate’s strategy. The candidates work with strategist to outline a plan that will result in a winning election. Strategist must work with the candidate’s pros and cons. There public accomplishment and public scandals. They also must consider the public and voters they are targeting. In or recent election, our two candidates obviously had two very different strategies both on the surface and on a more in depth level.

Design by: devereoline.com

It seemed that Trump established a focused and clear strategy that would win him the election. Many people payed attached to the republican candidates outrageous and offensive comments. However, if you payed attention to the campaign in its entirety all the moves Donald made seemed to go in accordance with his overall campaign strategy. Trumps strategy focused on connecting with the large number of Americans who are at a boiling point with the current establish government. These Americans are tired of politicians making promises to obtain their votes, but never committing to any of the promises they made. By catering and connect with these type of voters is giving Donald a great change of securing those votes regardless of who he would be running against. Donald’s stagiest identified and accepted the voters that were against Donald and would not change their opinion. Those voters they did not waste time appealing to. However, the strategy was to identify with and connect with rural American by any means. A huge population group that if tapped into could change the outcome of the election.

Hilary Clinton did not seem to have a strategy that was innovative and in a sense a plan thought out of the box. Hilary’s campaign seemed to be that of a normal position. A campaign that many of us Americans have seen before time and time again. Her campaign was typically. She would voice her opinions on policies and stances and focus on converting voter to agree that she is the right person to lead them. Normally some a campaign would have been accepting and leading to a winning nomination. However, this current time we are in the typical “politicians” is beginning to be frowned upon. One of the issues that many voters voiced about Hilary was that she is a cliché politician. She makes decision and takes stances based off corporate influence or political positioning. Many of her past political decisions seem to have not been in the best interest of the voters/people. This past trend that she seemed to continually repeat, left many of the American people with a legitimate distrust for her.

Innovation always seems to prevail. This innovative strategy which when against the norms of how to run a political, was truly a great decision. Did this election set a precedent? We must wait to see if future political campaigns will adopt different types of strategies when running a race.