What I meant was that on the one hand the article says that we shouldn’t underestimate the shameless. On the other hand it says that the person who employed shamelessness in the first election likely won’t win again (thereby underestimating the shameless).

It says the opposite to me. It's saying shamelessness won. And if you don't be shameless but instead stick to pre-2016 techniques you'll lose. To win you have to be shameless.

What? He did win again.