-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama suggests Clinton didn't work as hard as he did
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
- Status
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
idk, they were definitely playing a low-key strategy on purpose because Trump seemingly imploded every other day. i dont know why you would want to take away from that spotlight.
they should have definitely done smaller events in rural areas instead.
and how many of those days were debate prep?
I think I remember when GAF dismissed it as FUD.
The gain in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Iowa are similar to the gain in Florida.
You acknowledged that Trump won big in Florida.
If your new metric is victory margins over Clinton, guess what, compared to the victory margin in Florida, Trump had a better win over Clinton in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Iowa.
What he's talking about is retail politics in terms of the 2008 primary campaign and how he won Iowa there; that is, by connecting with individual voters. He's most certainly not suggesting that Democrats need to deliver their message by having their Presidential candidate spend 87 days of a GE campaigning in rural Iowa.
Latching onto the mere fact that he brought up Iowa and using it to phrase this as an indictment of the Clinton specifically is reaching and sensationalistic. Political operatives of all stripes thought the Party would be able to roughly maintain its 2012 standing among rural and white working-class voters as a baseline, including the GOP and people who worked on Obama's prior campaigns. Moreover, it has the tendency to suggest that we overlearn from these specific failures. A Democrat is not going to win in 2020 by camping out in Lebanon, PA for the entire month of August.
I may be reading into this a bit much myself, though.
Yeah, she literally made 0 stops in Wisconsin. I know Bernie beat her soundly but Trump got rocked too and he came to the state 7 times. She barely lost in Wisconsin too. If she shown up a handful of times it probably would have put her over the top to win it. There is a lot of hubris involved to completely ignore a state and hope to win it. The crazy thing is Trump got less votes than Romney (and a lot less than Ron Johnson). She didn't even need to perform as well as Obama. Just not as poorly as she had. A mediocre turnout for her in the state would have won it.
timetokill
Banned
Sounds about right.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
I can't wait for Obama's memoir, that's going to be an interesting read.
Powell called it.
EatinOlives
Member
I don't know what you're even trying to argue anymore. No, that wasn't my "new" metric, that had been my metric since the beginning. Read my posts more carefully next time.
Look at the margins of victory over Clinton in the rust belt states. Look at what percentage that ended up being. Look at the closest margins that there were in 2012 instead.
The wins were narrow but strategic. No amount of semantic arguments is going to change that.
The fact that he was there so long during the primary campaign helped during his general election campaign.
It isn't true that political operatives of all stripes thought that they did not need to reach out to rural voters. As a baseline, we can compare the campaign schedule with Obama's in 2008 and 2012. We also have public statements from Biden and Ed Rendell, and leaks from Bill Clinton aides.
Obama very pointedly suggested that overreliance on demographic data was not how elections are won.
Well, did Hillary spend commensurately less time in Iowa in 2015? I couldn't find a calendar anywhere. If so, I'll buy it.
And I'd think there's more than a little hindsight bias in those comments, since I feel like we've been hearing for years about how Obama's data operation drove him to victory in 2012 at least. I didn't hear much about the importance of retail politics from anybody until last week. Though maybe that's the problem.
And I'd think there's more than a little hindsight bias in those comments, since I feel like we've been hearing for years about how Obama's data operation drove him to victory in 2012 at least. I didn't hear much about the importance of retail politics from anybody until last week. Though maybe that's the problem.
plasmawave
Banned
Maybe they wanted to give Trump all the attention for their Pied Piper strategy.
Messofanego
Banned
I finally found something positive to say about Trump, Michael Moore. Thanks.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Not really? I'm pretty sure the person running for high school president knows that you got to be out there pressing the flesh. Understanding retail politics is basic politics 101.
(1) Are you meeting the people right now? Listening to them? Talking to them? No? Why not? Every voter is a potential vote.
(2) Never ignore anyone in the electorate. Every voter is a potential vote.
(3) Never insult the electorate, no matter what you privately think of them. Every voter is a potential vote.
(4) Every voter is a potential vote. Every last one.
Hillary Clinton's campaign violated all 4 of these very basic rules, and she lost to the biggest underdog candidate in American history. These things are not unrelated.
Obama was also smart enough to position himself as the champion of ordinary people while defining his opponent as an out of touch, anti-working class, rich guy. This helped him compensate for the lack of freshness and hope in 2012.
I'm not saying Hillary didn't try that with Trump, but she didn't have any single ad about his taxes or his failed companies that were as effective and chilling as the fired workers/empty factory ads Obama had on Romney. Those were true and heartbreaking.
I'm not saying Hillary didn't try that with Trump, but she didn't have any single ad about his taxes or his failed companies that were as effective and chilling as the fired workers/empty factory ads Obama had on Romney. Those were true and heartbreaking.
Looking at this in hindsight I agree she did not resonate with people partly because she has terrible instincts.
people can sense that intrinsically and it puts them off and makes them feel unsure about them. Not to mention the results of having terrible instincts with regard to decision making.
One reason Obama is such a good speaker is his instincts are impeccable when it comes to timing, pacing, modulation, etc.
abstract alien
Member
Not surprising. They went at each other's throats during his run for presidency, so throwing a slight doesn't shock me at all.
It's called hubris. The aura of inevitability the party elites associated with her presidency in 2007/2008 should have been a good learning experience for her and her campaign.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is one of the reasons I find the "but he doesn't actually want to win" argument not that credible. Someone who doesn't want to win doesn't try that hard to win. Unless there's another reasonable explanation for that contradiction that I'm just not seeing.
She would have been a contender. Much better on messaging, especially to the working class demographic.
Clinton had a data-driven strategy too. It just gave them bad advice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-an-algorithm-named-ada-what-didnt-she-see/
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is why the "so and so has experience" argument is not always true. One can possibly have experience doing the wrong thing and learning the wrong lessons from that experience.
"bad data" is a contributor, as I pointed out in the last post. See this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-an-algorithm-named-ada-what-didnt-she-see/
Actually, we heard a lot about Obama's big rallies and ground game, enthusiasm from volunteers was fed through the rallies. He beat Clinton through a stretch of several states in the primaries because the Clinton campaign hadn't organized in those states.
But if you want Clinton's visit numbers, here they are:
She had 27 visits and 42 days in Iowa from 2013 to 2016.
http://www.p2016.org/chrniowa/iavisits15d.html
Well they couldn't do enough to reverse what Jimmy Fallon did.
Manmademan
Member
The more I see things like this the angrier I am at Clinton. She learned literally nothing from her 08 primary loss, and it seems she went out of her way to avoid addressing any audiences outside of her comfort zone.
That being said: even IF she had squeaked out a narrow win over Trump it's likely she would have once again learned nothing and would have been crushed in 2020 when the republicans decided to run someone actually competent.
That scenario is actually worse than what we have now: the democrats need astronomical turnout in 2020 to mitigate or reverse the effects of gerrymandering. Not just nationally, but state by state in every district they can afford.
Parking yourself in blue metro areas will not get that job done, and there's nothing I can see anywhere that says Clinton would have done anything BUT that. We would have lost the house again for another decade.
All things considered if I had the choice between getting clowned on in 2016 and coming back with a better candidate and better strategy in 2020, or squeaking out a 2016 win with a republican house and Senate, getting smashed in 2020 and losing the house for another ten years I'll take the former.
That being said: even IF she had squeaked out a narrow win over Trump it's likely she would have once again learned nothing and would have been crushed in 2020 when the republicans decided to run someone actually competent.
That scenario is actually worse than what we have now: the democrats need astronomical turnout in 2020 to mitigate or reverse the effects of gerrymandering. Not just nationally, but state by state in every district they can afford.
Parking yourself in blue metro areas will not get that job done, and there's nothing I can see anywhere that says Clinton would have done anything BUT that. We would have lost the house again for another decade.
All things considered if I had the choice between getting clowned on in 2016 and coming back with a better candidate and better strategy in 2020, or squeaking out a 2016 win with a republican house and Senate, getting smashed in 2020 and losing the house for another ten years I'll take the former.
Manmademan
Member
Were age alone not enough, losing this badly to Trump, and entirely because of her own efforts or lack thereof means her name is mud.
Depending on how much damage Trump manages to do, "Hillary Clinton" will carry the same negative connotations as "Walter Mondale" going forward.
Yea that was a douchebag move by Fallon
She probably only needed a fraction of the 6 million+ Democrats who didn't show up this election and she would have won.
Hubris and the expectation she would be crowned lost it for her just like in 08. It's a huge failure on her team to not realize how much of an enthusiasm gap they had. Hell I didn't even take it seriously how much people disliked her and was convinced it was an easy win.
The reality may have been that Clinton was the only candidate Trump COULD beat, and we all just assumed it was the other way around.
The good news long term I think is the Clinton brand is done for awhile. Maybe for good. With any luck we'll flush the party of the entire thing (or take them out of the spotlight) and be able to rebuild the DNC for a new generation of voters.
The Dems are hurting bad nation-wide,really, really bad. At least this is an opportunity to rejuvenate the party.
Manmademan
Member
Absolutely. And we really, REALLY need it ahead of 2020.
Undoing the damage done to the house is critical.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I read hope in his words. While we wimper he reminds us that not all is lost. He just did it 4 years ago.
Sure, everyone looks for insults and slights but he knows more than anything that Clinton was his best hope and she may have squandered it by her choices. So i see it as him taking the mantle of leadership, during this time and telling people where to look.
---
A new hope just hit me.
Like, I'm looking at Warren as an excellent play in 2020. America told us that age doesn't matter and they want someone who is committed to the working class. Um, excuse me? I know exactly who fits that bill. Hell, throw old man Bernie back up there and let him get his fair shot so Warren can run circles around him. She's going to burn her legacy over the next 2 years giving Donald NMP hell.
Sure, everyone looks for insults and slights but he knows more than anything that Clinton was his best hope and she may have squandered it by her choices. So i see it as him taking the mantle of leadership, during this time and telling people where to look.
---
A new hope just hit me.
Like, I'm looking at Warren as an excellent play in 2020. America told us that age doesn't matter and they want someone who is committed to the working class. Um, excuse me? I know exactly who fits that bill. Hell, throw old man Bernie back up there and let him get his fair shot so Warren can run circles around him. She's going to burn her legacy over the next 2 years giving Donald NMP hell.
Her campaign was a disaster from a mile away. Relying on demographic shifts as your strategy is insane. Never doing a campaign stop in a swing state that went Trump like Wisconsin is inexcusable.
Her effort and the intense bullying by her campaign (surrogates) was an absolute embarrassment. Losing to Trump is a price we all pay for her incompetence. If this party isn't remade, we're fucked.
Her effort and the intense bullying by her campaign (surrogates) was an absolute embarrassment. Losing to Trump is a price we all pay for her incompetence. If this party isn't remade, we're fucked.
Tough thing is, if Warren were to run and win, I just don't see her being able to govern now that almost all levels of government nationally are red.
That may be the case. But they took over state and local in a fairly short time. And organized opposition could do the same. Democrats have the issues and the changing makeup of the country on their side. But obviously there needs to be will too.
Agreed on most counts.
I will say though that hubris of victory was not shared by all democrats. Many of us opposed her until it became clear that she was the only hope we had against a fascist. I am, and always be proud to have voted and phonebanked for her against him.
But people like me were routinely harassed and bullied by a small but vicious segment of her supporters. It wasn't most, but it was many. Our vote and honest opinions weren't enough for them.
You're a man and you aren't all in with her? Sexist! You're white and talking about the economy, not at the exclusion of, but in addition to race? Racist!
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Webb and O'Malley weren't talking about trade like Trump was, if I remember correctly. I don't think it would have been that easy.
Webb was too busy grinning at killing dudes with grenades in 'Nam.
Amory
Member
In retrospect, she rested on her laurels in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That can't really be disputed. I don't know if that was a matter of not working hard enough...she was clearly working hard, maybe just not working smart. But she clearly was complacent in those areas and ended up taking them for granted and going after other states that weren't critical, either to try to give herself a more secure lead or even run up the score.
She could've sat in those 3 states and campaigned hard until election day. And if she had, I think she's the president elect today.
She could've sat in those 3 states and campaigned hard until election day. And if she had, I think she's the president elect today.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
That's always a problem. But she's exciting, more than Clinton, doesn't have the baggage and will have few fights with NMP.
Will be a natural to continue that message for common people. She's an excellent fundraiser. Sure, we need new blood but it will be hard to get anyone exciting within 2 years. By this time for the 2008 cycle, Obama already made his name. Only person that did that, this year, is Michelle Obama.
I'll start the hype train. I need this, tho. Something to look forward to.
Souldriver
Member
I quite understand the mistakes the Hillary Campaign made, when all the data is showing you're doing all the right things. Not just her internal data, but all data.
Maybe it's a good thing to take a step back once in a while during the campaign, and wonder where you can compensate for possible mistakes and overlooked dangers. But when every minute, dollar and campaign stop counts in the final stretch of the campaign, I understand why they followed the strategy that by all accounts meant them winning the election.
I do fault her though for pulling the race card as much as Trump did. Her campaign stressed the diversity and inclusiveness too much (I know, it shouldn't be a bad thing), and the moral superiority over Trump ("think about our kids") that it kind a burried the other important issues of the election, like the economy or security. People are selfish, and their own safety and economic security goes before that of others. When the Nevada early voting story with record Latino turnout broke, I didn't see that as a possitive. It dominated the news for days, yet I was sure the midwest/northern states couldn't give a rats ass about that. If anything, the focus on what kind of voter turned out (color of their skin), probably annoyed many white voters. You can call it racist, but I'm sure a lot of those could have been swayed by a more economic message, even if it came from a black or hispanic candidate, democrat, woman, ...
What amazes me more, is not that Hillary lost despite doing all the "right things", but that Trump won despite doing all the "wrong things". His campaign was an absolute clusterfuck. I don't know if his intuition is really that good, or if he made a high risk gamble that paid off, or if he is just super lucky, but he got his 270 electoral votes. He even lost the popular vote, but managed to max out his margins in the right places to get those states. Seeing it unfold on election night is still one of the most surreal things I've ever witnessed.
Maybe it's a good thing to take a step back once in a while during the campaign, and wonder where you can compensate for possible mistakes and overlooked dangers. But when every minute, dollar and campaign stop counts in the final stretch of the campaign, I understand why they followed the strategy that by all accounts meant them winning the election.
I do fault her though for pulling the race card as much as Trump did. Her campaign stressed the diversity and inclusiveness too much (I know, it shouldn't be a bad thing), and the moral superiority over Trump ("think about our kids") that it kind a burried the other important issues of the election, like the economy or security. People are selfish, and their own safety and economic security goes before that of others. When the Nevada early voting story with record Latino turnout broke, I didn't see that as a possitive. It dominated the news for days, yet I was sure the midwest/northern states couldn't give a rats ass about that. If anything, the focus on what kind of voter turned out (color of their skin), probably annoyed many white voters. You can call it racist, but I'm sure a lot of those could have been swayed by a more economic message, even if it came from a black or hispanic candidate, democrat, woman, ...
What amazes me more, is not that Hillary lost despite doing all the "right things", but that Trump won despite doing all the "wrong things". His campaign was an absolute clusterfuck. I don't know if his intuition is really that good, or if he made a high risk gamble that paid off, or if he is just super lucky, but he got his 270 electoral votes. He even lost the popular vote, but managed to max out his margins in the right places to get those states. Seeing it unfold on election night is still one of the most surreal things I've ever witnessed.
MaulerX
Member
Aren't they still counting? The difference is just 400K at the moment and Trump might end up with more votes when it's all said and done. I do agree that Hillary lost it though. A bit less Hubris and a tiny more effort might have made a huge difference.
Langdon Alger
Banned
She's been pretty unpopular the entire time she's been in the national spotlight. A lot of people have always disliked her. The democrats decided to run a very unpopular candidate for some reason.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked