• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Now that I think about it, maybe this should have been obvious. Prior to the election, every marketing "thought leader" and their mother was talking about "x things you can learn about marketing from Trump." He may have looked like he was doing the wrong thing, but he was killing it all along.
 

Yoritomo

Member
You can be right or you can be effective.

Being right sure feels good but losing an election because you wanted so hard to be right about social policy sorta feels bad.

Democratic inclusiveness should include working class/non-college educated white people.

You've got a couple decades until all your dreams come true and you can flush rural white people down the toilet and just yell at them to move to a city.
 

chubigans

y'all should be ashamed
Spending so much time faulting Hillary for where she didn't campaign strikes me as coddling an electorate that couldn't be bothered to do a little basic due diligence, or even show up at the polls, for that matter. The candidates shouldn't have to show up on our doorsteps for each of us to make a proper assessment of their campaign promises and proposed policies for the presidency. Or to have enough empathy to realize that one of them is an unscrupulous bigot whose promises aren't worth the lives of minorities he blithely throws under the bus. Even in rural areas there should be ample enough access to information without direct access to the candidate to make a sensible decision over the course of a campaign that last's more than a year. Start by switching the channel from Fox News for just a bit.

Complaining that those rural folk should step out of their depressed economy/unemployment bubble and vote with their heart reeks of the kind of elitism that lost the Dems the election in the first place. It's easy to say "those people should have educated themselves and learned how bad a candidate they voted for really is!"

Maybe the question you should be asking is, what if they knew all that anyways, and still voted for him over Hillary? What does that tell you about Hillary? Better yet, what does it tell you that six million Dems couldn't even get behind their own candidate? Easier to turn it around: "what does it say about a person that has voted in a racist, bigoted billionaire?"

We could just write it off as sexism and racism and call it a day, because that makes things easier to digest. A battle of Good vs. Evil, and oh no, Evil won last week, and look at the chaos. If only those people in Michigan knew they were voting for Hitler. Now America will fall into the depths of depravity. What a racist, sexist America we live in. Easy, right?

Maybe our society has conditioned us to compartmentalize stuff like this into extreme good and bad. I don't really know. It has lead to such a breakdown of conversation that I feel like I can only talk to my friends about it in a great discussion because we empathize with each other, whether we realize it or not, despite us actually having significantly different political beliefs. The thing is, we all have our reasons, our own motivations, and there's much work to be done on both sides in understanding each other. This massive divide helps no one.
 
And this is why the DNC needs to re-implement the 50 state strategy, with or without him at the helm.

Dems took for granted their base, and it worked against them. The Clinton campaign, AFAIK, didn't have much of the same staff as Obama. A few, but not much (and if I'm wrong, I apologize).

We lost due to arrogance, and disconnect with our constituency. Their vote needs to be earned again, and we do that by helping them get what they need. I don't see much of that help coming from the soon-to-be administration, but it does give us time. I'm skeptical about 2018, and a little less about 2020.

The Trump win, and future administration, threaten to, and likely will, kneecap the progress that's been made. We're likely to be set back by years because of this.
 

Yoritomo

Member
Also remember this win was a swing of some states that had been blue.

If trump fucks up, the backlash could be grand in both mid-terms and 2020.

Lets be honest he will definitely fuck up.
 

aeolist

Banned
Also remember this win was a swing of some states that had been blue.

If trump fucks up, the backlash could be grand in both mid-terms and 2020.

Lets be honest he will definitely fuck up.
the majority of senate seats up in 2018 are blue and even disregarding the normal midterm problems democrats have the house is gerrymandered so hard winning there is even more unlikely
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Complaining that those rural folk should step out of their depressed economy/unemployment bubble and vote with their heart reeks of the kind of elitism that lost the Dems the election in the first place. It's easy to say "those people should have educated themselves and learned how bad a candidate they voted for really is!"
A few things here:

- I most certainly was *not* advocating that people simply "vote with their hearts". Vote with your head and your heart. Vote in your best interests, using your best sensibilities, rational thought and hopefully with some basic empathy for your fellow citizens in a big country
- Liberal elites are being told to get out of their bubble, but no one else should have to take the same advice?
- The need to learn here should have been minimal. We're talking about a candidate who wore humanity's worst impulses proudly on his sleeve at just about every campaign stop and rally he held. Does anybody care that there's a counterpoint to that? Oh, wait, it didn't show up on my doorstep, nevermind.

Maybe the question you should be asking is, what if they knew all that anyways, and still voted for him over Hillary? What does that tell you about Hillary? Better yet, what does it tell you that six million Dems couldn't even get behind their own candidate? Easier to turn it around: "what does it say about a person that has voted in a racist, bigoted billionaire?"
That's exactly the question I alluded to in the 1st paragraph of my post, not quoted. And whether you turn the question around to focus on the racism and bigotry (and why shouldn't we?!?) doesn't change the implicit statement about Hillary's apparent weakness as a candidate. I'm not trying to gloss over that, I just think it really is far more important to concern ourselves with that fact that we've embraced racism, misogyny and bigotry for the highest office in our land at the most unprecedented level we've seen in modern times. You'll forgive me if the justification that the alternative to that was "weak" wrings more than a little hollow.

Easy, right?
No, not easy. I've not once called Trump evil or likened him to Hitler. I've been as precise as I can be in describing what I think he is. I've never boiled this down to such simple absolutes. But that doesn't change the fact there is a gulf of difference between these two candidates that can be readily discerned by anyone who isn't more invested in partisan bickering and has even a passing understanding and actually cares about the ideals this nation was founded on and that we continue to strive towards.

I certainly hold myself accountable as much as anyone else. For being complacent, personally, thinking that social progress had enough momentum to carry us forward slowly but surely with no major setbacks like this, while I mostly watched from the sidelines.
 

Meier

Member
I do wonder if there is some level of truth to her health not allowing for as hard of campaigning as she probably needed to do. I can't imagine otherwise why she wouldn't have gone to some states for months at a time. I can't imagine it was just due to thinking things were in the bag.
 
I do wonder if there is some level of truth to her health not allowing for as hard of campaigning as she probably needed to do. I can't imagine otherwise why she wouldn't have gone to some states for months at a time. I can't imagine it was just due to thinking things were in the bag.

She was just wasting time with fundraising.
 

guek

Banned
Complaining that those rural folk should step out of their depressed economy/unemployment bubble and vote with their heart reeks of the kind of elitism that lost the Dems the election in the first place. It's easy to say "those people should have educated themselves and learned how bad a candidate they voted for really is!"

Maybe the question you should be asking is, what if they knew all that anyways, and still voted for him over Hillary? What does that tell you about Hillary? Better yet, what does it tell you that six million Dems couldn't even get behind their own candidate? Easier to turn it around: "what does it say about a person that has voted in a racist, bigoted billionaire?"

We could just write it off as sexism and racism and call it a day, because that makes things easier to digest. A battle of Good vs. Evil, and oh no, Evil won last week, and look at the chaos. If only those people in Michigan knew they were voting for Hitler. Now America will fall into the depths of depravity. What a racist, sexist America we live in. Easy, right?

Maybe our society has conditioned us to compartmentalize stuff like this into extreme good and bad. I don't really know. It has lead to such a breakdown of conversation that I feel like I can only talk to my friends about it in a great discussion because we empathize with each other, whether we realize it or not, despite us actually having significantly different political beliefs. The thing is, we all have our reasons, our own motivations, and there's much work to be done on both sides in understanding each other. This massive divide helps no one.

The defeatist attitude on display with so many GAFers as of late has been horrible. Obama won two landslide elections in a row and the turnout for this election was lower on all fronts. It's not like those "deplorable" voters somehow became unreachable and completely undependable in the last 4 years. As you said, that elitists attitude cost us this election. With a Trump presidency and Republican Congress, we can't afford to have it cost us any more elections down the road.
 
It was so razor thin, of course it would've helped. Every bit could've helped.

One could say this stuff (the same with the sexism discussion in the other thread) if she fought hard in those election deciding states one would expect from a democratic candidate.
 

Chariot

Member
She was just wasting time with fundraising.
She also has some free days. Trump didn't take one day of in the last months.

Probably another reason why she looked ao fresh and he rather dim. He just finished a month long event marathon where he moved relentless through the land.

One could say this stuff (the same with the sexism discussion in the other thread) if she fought hard in those election deciding states one would expect from a democratic candidate.
Not much she could've done about her gender or the FBI nagging her on. But working hard and visiting people on the ground instead of fundraisers is something that was something that was in her realm of possiblities. That was her responsibility as nominee.
 

chubigans

y'all should be ashamed
Good points, kaching. I assumed a lot of you and I apologize. I was mainly speaking to the elitist and not so much you.

I'm not trying to gloss over that, I just think it really is far more important to concern ourselves with that fact that we've embraced racism, misogyny and bigotry for the highest office in our land at the most unprecedented level we've seen in modern times. You'll forgive me if the justification that the alternative to that was "weak" wrings more than a little hollow.

I think a part of me as a minority wants to believe, or has to believe, that America voted in a candidate not because of his hateful speech but because he had something that Dems didn't fight for. Whether that's empty promises, we'll see (I'm sure they are). But it was their election to lose, and boy did they lose it.
 

digdug2k

Member
You didn't get my point. I'm saying that she wasn't addressing minority concerns while doing all those fundraising events, not that she didn't address them at all. She could have spent that time addressing other people's concerns without subtracting it from minorities.
I'm sure someone made the argument to her that fundraising let her put out ad buys, which let her talk to millions of people instead of 12. You could easily make this argument either way, depending on if you won or lost. She sent surrogates to most of these states. Obama went to some of them multiple times. He failed.
 

Steejee

Member
I'm sure someone made the argument to her that fundraising let her put out ad buys, which let her talk to millions of people instead of 12. You could easily make this argument either way, depending on if you won or lost. She sent surrogates to most of these states. Obama went to some of them multiple times. He failed.

Biden, Michelle, and Sanders all did as well. All very popular surrogates, still didn't do it.

While I feel it was a huge mistake to not spend more time in the swing states herself, it wasn't a completely illogical decision, especially when virtually everyone felt the polling a month or two out was showing she was in great shape.

Trump rather much *had* to go himself - he has no surrogates that could draw crowds, he was the draw himself.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Good points, kaching. I assumed a lot of you and I apologize. I was mainly speaking to the elitist and not so much you.
You're good peeps, chubigans, and I'm "GAF's biggest wanker" so I can hardly fault the occasional misunderstanding. ;)
 

Chichikov

Member
the majority of senate seats up in 2018 are blue and even disregarding the normal midterm problems democrats have the house is gerrymandered so hard winning there is even more unlikely
The house is way more likely than the senate in '18.

Look at this map -

FToZJuo.png


I'm not saying the house is going to be easy, but the house is the house, you get a strong midterm you can flip it, the senate would require a crazy wave election.
 

digdug2k

Member
The house is way more likely than the senate in '18.

Look at this map -

FToZJuo.png


I'm not saying the house is going to be easy, but the house is the house, you get a strong midterm you can flip it, the senate would require a crazy wave election.
We're fucked now, but Dems should push hard to get anti-gerrymandering policies in place in as many states as possible before 2020. Legislatures hate them, but they seem popular with the people (i.e. both red and blue have passed them). Wasn't Obama planning to work on that somehow?
 
You literally have people saying that bigotry, racism and sexism shouldn't be called out, or else you will alienate the white, rural voter.

Do people not see the problem with that? Mind you, that doesn't mean we ignore their concerns, as I've already stated. You aren't addressing both, you're trying to hush up one side so you can appeal to another to win the next election.
This is not what most people are saying.

Most of us are preaching pragmatism. Messaging is everything in elections.
 
We're fucked now, but Dems should push hard to get anti-gerrymandering policies in place in as many states as possible before 2020. Legislatures hate them, but they seem popular with the people (i.e. both red and blue have passed them). Wasn't Obama planning to work on that somehow?

Pre election Obama said he and Eric Holder were going to work on state by state legislation to cut gerrymandering. I think after the election that is going to be nearly impossible though as GOP controls most state legislative bodies right now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-holder-redistricting-gerrymandering-229868
 
Complaining that those rural folk should step out of their depressed economy/unemployment bubble and vote with their heart reeks of the kind of elitism that lost the Dems the election in the first place. It's easy to say "those people should have educated themselves and learned how bad a candidate they voted for really is!"

Maybe the question you should be asking is, what if they knew all that anyways, and still voted for him over Hillary? What does that tell you about Hillary? Better yet, what does it tell you that six million Dems couldn't even get behind their own candidate? Easier to turn it around: "what does it say about a person that has voted in a racist, bigoted billionaire?"

We could just write it off as sexism and racism and call it a day, because that makes things easier to digest. A battle of Good vs. Evil, and oh no, Evil won last week, and look at the chaos. If only those people in Michigan knew they were voting for Hitler. Now America will fall into the depths of depravity. What a racist, sexist America we live in. Easy, right?

Maybe our society has conditioned us to compartmentalize stuff like this into extreme good and bad. I don't really know. It has lead to such a breakdown of conversation that I feel like I can only talk to my friends about it in a great discussion because we empathize with each other, whether we realize it or not, despite us actually having significantly different political beliefs. The thing is, we all have our reasons, our own motivations, and there's much work to be done on both sides in understanding each other. This massive divide helps no one.


Except Hillary won the majority of counties with average income under $50,000, and if I recall the median household income of the typical Trump voter is around $78k. So I don't know why we're hopping on this "white folk can't be bothered with social justice when they're dealing with economic anxiety" narrative. Somehow this same economic anxiety hasn't stopped considerably worse off black and brown people. Trump voters are police officers with pension plans and middle management folks at Dunder-Mifflin type offices, not ex-coal miners that find themselves working as cashiers at the local Piggy Wiggly. I mean, sure, those people are out there, but for the most part your typical Trump voter is comfortably middle class.
 
It's quite simple.

You aren't winning people who have seen their jobs moving to oversea with things like LGBT rights or whatever minority agenda you have.
They don't care, it doesn't mean they are against it but they aren't going voting to fix those problems but they want their problems addressed.
 

Ron Mexico

Member
Except Hillary won the majority of counties with average income under $50,000, and if I recall the median household income of the typical Trump voter is around $78k.

So I'd like to dig into this a little. A household making $50k looks very different in different parts of the country. A coal miner and, say an entry-level white collar service position in an urban center both make $50k.

One has an innate sense of hope towards upward mobility. The other doesn't have that upward mobility to look forward to and as a result is going to be more receptive to the firebrand that's at least paying lip service.

It's not that she didn't win enough of the counties in that income segment. She didn't win the right ones. She didn't win the right ones because she thought she already had them for the exact point you make.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I agree both her campaign schedule and the media each played a role, although I would argue in different facets.

Campaign strategy-- cost her the margins in those states where she made no concerted effort at all, even if that effort would have been to just cement the expected victory.

Media in all its forms-- primary driver for the popular vote even being close.

So one macro and one slightly less macro and slightly more micro? That make sense?
It does, and is basically what I was saying only I said it much less clearly - I think you have the correct framing. The media kept it close, and she blew the margin with her campaign strategy, rather than putting her over.
 

FStop7

Banned
Follow the paper trail.

All of the campaign money in the world doesn't make a difference if people don't vote for you. The arrogance is just off the scale. In a normal election I'd say that this is just part of the process of filtering out someone who is unfit to lead. If she can't lead her campaign she certainly can't lead the entire country. But given the situation with her opponent it's just straight up infuriating.
 
All of the campaign money in the world doesn't make a difference if people don't vote for you. The arrogance is just off the scale. In a normal election I'd say that this is just part of the process of filtering out someone who is unfit to lead. If she can't lead her campaign she certainly can't lead the entire country. But given the situation with her opponent it's just straight up infuriating.
Oh, I totally agree.

It just seems like she was complacent and perhaps even more comfortable just sitting back and doing fundraisers with the rich and famous in NY, CA and MA.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Ahh, that schedule from the first page makes my head hurt. What was with that crazy schedule and talk of sleeping at home every night? Foh. I have to suffer not my president because you looked your bed?

Warren 2020. I'm so over her.
 
If there was going to be a woman running for president from the DNC, it should've been Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton needs to hang it up.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
This gives credence to the notion that Hillary felt entitled, as if the nation owed her the presidency and that any other possibility was just unfathomable.
 

TaterTots

Banned
Wrong candidate at the wrong time.

More campaigning wasn't going to help.

Fox, I disagree. She was projected to win parts of the rust belt the day before the election. Instead of campaigning in the rural areas that were devastated when factories closed down, she decided to take breaks and visit big cities she was definitely locked for. In the meantime Trump was visiting the counties in MI, WI, OH, and PA all the way up until the end. He won their vote by promising jobs and backing out of TPP in a hopeless area. She completely neglected that region and she lost 64 electoral college votes because of it. She simply did not care for those people and even mentioned, "the working white class is a lost cause" at one point. Isn't 70% of the U.S. white? That was a big middle finger and she also gave a big middle finger to half of Americans by calling them deplorable. It was just a disaster on her part.
 

grumble

Member
You can be right or you can be effective.

Being right sure feels good but losing an election because you wanted so hard to be right about social policy sorta feels bad.

Democratic inclusiveness should include working class/non-college educated white people.

You've got a couple decades until all your dreams come true and you can flush rural white people down the toilet and just yell at them to move to a city.

Sure but the election wasn't a social one, it was an economic one. That was the screw up.
 

SpecX

Member
he's talking Obama

I think it still applies though. Trump is older, yet did what she didn't do. I get Obama was younger and could go the extra, do more with more youth/energy, but it doesn't excuse the fact Trump outdid her by going to these places, even added on late night last minute rallies. I still don't follow the man, but to be fair have to give him credit where due.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom