Support NeoGAF

[DrForester]

#trumpcantswim is now right behind #hackinghillary on twitter trends...

 

[JesseEwiak]

yeah, but this is what I'm talking about. These events don't seem to be very effective - they're too local.

That's the opposite of what everybody in the Obama campaign said about past elections. That while everybody was complaining about Obama not going after Romney enough in a big campaign, he was doing 5 minute stand ups at every local news station in swing states.

Because people actually watch local news.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

yeah, but this is what I'm talking about. These events don't seem to be very effective - they're too local.

Wouldn't the best way to take back the House be to target local purple districts and have a large war chest? I'm not an expert on this but that seems like it would be the best method, especially since the biggest campaign strengths of both Clintons is retail politics.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Wow, you guys get really aggressive. Crab is cool, why don't you guys like crab?

 

[adamsappel]

They just aren't interested. The fact that the Hillary's Alt right speech on him was glossed over. The fact that the media has been soft of his many scandals proves they want a close horse race.

Because if they reported on that shit like they should it would blow up.

When the election is over and Trump has been soundly defeated, I expect the media will savage his corpse with all manner of hit-pieces. They are afraid to be labelled biased right now. When they think there's no personal downside, they will attack him with everything they've saved up. There's also going to be a lot of books written about this election, and reporters are holding their best stuff back.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The local campaign rallies are more important. As you noted earlier, this election is about turnout, and people getting the chance to see her and meet her is way more important than having another big speech. Besides, why should she hold a bunch of national events when she doesn't have anything important to say? I'm not sure what a national event without a big policy rollout or speech would even be like.

Given the apathy she faces amongst certain demographics, I am unconvinced that local rallies that maybe 30,000 people attend would be effective as drawing national attention to herself in a way that reaches way over 30,000 people.

And Clinton has policies, and lots of people don't know these policies, and it seems to me pretty important they know these policies, which gives her something important to say? All of her policies get dropped by apparent stealth at these small local events meaning most people are in the dark about them.

Also, you don't even live here! Are you moving because of Brexit?

No, in all probability I'll be moving to the Netherlands, although for my job and unrelated to Brexit. I follow politics in all English-speaking countries and a number of European ones, but American politics has the most direct relevance to me outside my own nations' given America's global influence. However, I've lived in America in the past and might return one day.

 

[Joeytj]

I don't think local campaign rallies are the most useful thing for her to be doing, though. If they're not headlined as significant in advance, they're usually only covered locally and even then only in passing. That makes their main benefit rallying the people who did attend, which is great and all if we were in the final month and we needed to be able target specific key demographics with an enthusiasm-booster to make sure they vote, but is... underwhelming this far out where you can't guarantee enthusiasm-boosters last all the way until election day, and where you're passing over the chance to get national coverage when doing so.

It's going specific-details at a stage in the campaign where we're big-picture still. Which is... very Clinton, and why I worry.

That is EXACTLY the most useful thing to do right now, and why she's up in the polls in battleground states at or above her national average. While Trump thinks doing well in national headlines will win him the election (and that's not entirely untrue), winning local headlines in battleground states, and headlines about local issues and policy, isn't a waste a time.

A lot of Bernie supporters were also used to looking at the election through a national lens and through the lens of big speeches and headlines, but that's not the most important thing in an presidential election. While I too think they could've avoided ceding too much ground to Trump in national headlines, it's still part of their overall strategy and there are still 62 days and three debates to go before this is done.

Less days if you take into account that early voting begins in about 20 days in some states.

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

This notion that two weeks in August, 70+ days from the election, where Hillary didn't receive constant headlines and attacks on Trump, even though she was fundraising record numbers, even though she was up in every battleground state, even though half the news cycle was still on Trump immigration waffling, was somehow bad for Hillary and reason to freak out is fucking baffling to me.

When you live with two people who are constantly diablosing and you have to be the words of reason, it gets hard to not begin to freak out due to surroundings.

 

[User 463088]

yeah, but this is what I'm talking about. These events don't seem to be very effective - they're too local.

LIke, no. This is wrong. And, ya. No.

Huge televised TV rallies are the exception rather than the norm. You can get away with calling a few of them here and there, but doing like Trump does is atypical. Besides, most national media covers them for about 10 minutes and then cuts away. There is diminishing returns, and we see that with Trump now. I mean we literally are three months out from a candidate who kept doing yuge rallies and he still lost spectacularly because, like, they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things when you make sure the fundamentals favor you.

Rallies that are hyperlocal are actually the cornerstone of good campaigning. Most people get their news from local sources. Hillary's events in Ohio today were all over the local news outlets. Even Trump's major rallies get about 3 minutes of coverage unless he says something stupid.

Hillary has been doing exactly what a good campaigner should be doing. She's raised money to fund her race and down ballot races. She's been on the air in a way Trump hasn't. She's been opening offices and hiring staff. Local offices have been kicking ass around me with GOTV, registration drives and the like.

Also, Daddy Mook is smarter than all of us.

 

[Y2Kev]

I mean, I agree that it's too far from election day to just do a motivation booster and not touch the subject again. But obviously Clinton is going to be in Cleveland again before November.

I don't think I agree with the idea that events are "too local." Historically it has been things said at these events that blow up (can anyone actually remember the venue for Romney drawing on a white board about his Medicare bullshit?), and it is hard to argue that the primaries aren't the exact same thing. I think people just don't have the interest to focus on a 70 day series of mega-events. Those local events are pretty important for getting people registered, too.

I think Clinton going dark in August isn't all that atypical, although maybe atypical for August itself (usually convention month). I think this year is really screwed up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wouldn't the best way to take back the House be to target local purple districts and have a large war chest? I'm not an expert on this but that seems like it would be the best method, especially since the biggest campaign strengths of both Clintons is retail politics.

I think there's a time and a place for each. National campaigns are for raising awareness, local campaigns are for raising enthusiasm. Enthusiasm fades over time, awareness does not. To make that clear: if you find out Clinton has policy X, as long as she doesn't change that policy, you are still aware of it even if you never pay attention again, but if you attend a Clinton rally, feel pumped, then let a few weeks pass by, you can slip back into apathy again. So that means you want to be doing national stuff early on, and then local stuff in the final month or so - let everyone know what you're about, then hit the hype so it peaks at the right moment. That does mean targeting specific House districts, but doing that in September seems a bit pointless.

Like, a lot of people have responded to my posts as though I don't think local rallies are useful. I don't think that at all, and with respect I think some posters are falling into caricaturing my opinion because in general I disagree with posters in this thread fairly often. My point is just that I think Clinton currently has the balance wrong, and for evidence, I cite the steady Trump recovery in opinion polling.

 

[Emarv]

Given the apathy she faces amongst certain demographics, I am unconvinced that local rallies that maybe 30,000 people attend would be effective as drawing national attention to herself in a way that reaches way over 30,000 people.

And Clinton has policies, and lots of people don't know these policies, and it seems to me pretty important they know these policies, which gives her something important to say? All of her policies get dropped by apparent stealth at these small local events meaning most people are in the dark about them.

People don't watch national cable news to get across policy. They watch them to get soundbites, horse race stuff and larger narratives. Campaigns know this, too, and write them directly targeted to media because they know they'll just be chopped up into 30 second clips.

The average person working a 9-5 job isn't watching a rally at 2pm on CNN, but they watch the local news at 9pm to get the weather and then hear a small snippet of Hillary talking about mental health or paid family leave and then hear the 30 second horse race clip from CNN or whatever. That 5 minute local interview is what matters.

 

[Y2Kev]

Though I do think she should be doing a MAJOR SPEECH a week. Those are really effective for her so I don't understand why they are so infrequent. You can even do it from like outside a fundraising venue.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Given the apathy she faces amongst certain demographics, I am unconvinced that local rallies that maybe 30,000 people attend would be effective as drawing national attention to herself in a way that reaches way over 30,000 people.

And Clinton has policies, and lots of people don't know these policies, and it seems to me pretty important they know these policies, which gives her something important to say? All of her policies get dropped by apparent stealth at these small local events meaning most people are in the dark about them.

30,000? No way, man, these are 1,000 - 1,500 tops.

She's given a speech on all of her policies again. Plus, there was the entire DNC. Really, the time to do this will be during the debates when everyone really is watching. It's not like Clinton can hold a televised address where she goes over everything she's about every week. I'm not sure what you're expecting. She even has a podcast!

No, in all probability I'll be moving to the Netherlands, although for my job and unrelated to Brexit. I follow politics in all English-speaking countries and a number of European ones, but American politics has the most direct relevance to me outside my own nations' given America's global influence. However, I've lived in America in the past and might return one day.

You mean when a Clinton/Democrat trifecta government turns this into a liberal paradise?

 

[Emarv]

Though I do think she should be doing a MAJOR SPEECH a week. Those are really effective for her so I don't understand why they are so infrequent. You can even do it from like outside a fundraising venue.

She can't. Her doctor won't allow more than one speech a month or she might die.

 

[Armaros]

I mean, I agree that it's too far from election day to just do a motivation booster and not touch the subject again. But obviously Clinton is going to be in Cleveland again before November.

I don't think I agree with the idea that events are "too local." Historically it has been things said at these events that blow up (can anyone actually remember the venue for Romney drawing on a white board about his Medicare bullshit?), and it is hard to argue that the primaries aren't the exact same thing. I think people just don't have the interest to focus on a 70 day series of mega-events. Those local events are pretty important for getting people registered, too.

I think Clinton going dark in August isn't all that atypical, although maybe atypical for August itself (usually convention month). I think this year is really screwed up.

Pretty sure in electoral politics, the summer is conventions, starting the ad wars, fundraising for the last minute ad buys and targeting campaign expansion.

 

[Debirudog]

I can understand that Crab is geniunely worried for the Clinton campaign but doing local rallies and speeches matter because they help drive up turnout. This is the case that helped Obama achieve his 2nd term victory when polling was ridiculously close. The current gap isn't even that close compared to the 2012 election.

Hillary's doing groundwork. Look at the number of officers compared to Trump's. If Trump can't win Florida (and he'll most likely not), he'll lose. Bigly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Though I do think she should be doing a MAJOR SPEECH a week. Those are really effective for her so I don't understand why they are so infrequent. You can even do it from like outside a fundraising venue.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

EDIT: yeesh, guys. I know locals drive up turnout, come on; I'm not saying locals can't have a big impact or whatever. However, August is not the turnout month - that's for October and so on. Most people don't attend a rally in August and stay pumped all the way until November unless they're adam387. Trust me, I've convened small rallies before, you'd be amazed how many bright enthused people in April forget to vote in May! Turn-out is a strike-while-the-iron's-hot sort of thing and the iron seems pretty cold right now. It's a time and a place thing; my complaint is not that Clinton does locals but that she is doing them specifically now.

 

[Boombloxer]

Completely off topic, but Braindead on Amazon is darkly entertaining.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets The West Wing with offbeat humor.

 

[Trouble]

You totally can tell. lol. Everyone knew I was gay after I burst through the placenta.

Was it purse first?

 

[User 463088]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

And I'm pretty sure she will, going forward. I don't think August was the time to do that.The 5th through the 21st was eaten up by the Olympics. She used that time to do the unsexy stuff. Plus, her opponent is setting his dick on fire.

Why am I going to give a speech on social security when, literally, no one is paying attention. There are 60 days that need to be filled up. I just don't think people pay enough attention 70 days out to care about policy speeches.

Was it purse first?

Always.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think her effectiveness will be limited until the media shifts back to its anti-Trump phase (you have to wait it out...it's like every two to three weeks) or she holds a press conference. The question is how long the issues of the conference will drag out and dilute her message.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't have one. It's higher risk but I think it could be high reward. If she schmoozes a bit and works on her answers it could really pay dividends. But I wouldn't be surprised if no one gives a speech on immigration the time of day if she doesn't deal with this first.

 

[User 463088]

I think her effectiveness will be limited until the media shifts back to its anti-Trump phase (you have to wait it out...it's like every two to three weeks) or she holds a press conference. The question is how long the issues of the conference will drag out and dilute her message.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't have one. It's higher risk but I think it could be high reward. If she schmoozes a bit and works on her answers it could really pay dividends. But I wouldn't be surprised if no one gives a speech on immigration the time of day if she doesn't deal with this first.

Ya, but she'll hack herself to death because she's dying.

 

[dramatis]

yeah, but this is what I'm talking about. These events don't seem to be very effective - they're too local.

I think this, in the end, shows why you never understood why Hillary is a better candidate than Sanders.

You're also too interested in optics over effective campaigning.

 

[Suikoguy]

I think her effectiveness will be limited until the media shifts back to its anti-Trump phase (you have to wait it out...it's like every two to three weeks) or she holds a press conference. The question is how long the issues of the conference will drag out and dilute her message.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't have one. It's higher risk but I think it could be high reward. If she schmoozes a bit and works on her answers it could really pay dividends. But I wouldn't be surprised if no one gives a speech on immigration the time of day if she doesn't deal with this first.

I think dominating the debate would be a better use of time than a Press Conference. I don't think a press conference is going to change the way the media is operating at all.

 

[royalan]

This special on CNN...

;__;

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think her effectiveness will be limited until the media shifts back to its anti-Trump phase (you have to wait it out...it's like every two to three weeks) or she holds a press conference. The question is how long the issues of the conference will drag out and dilute her message.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't have one. It's higher risk but I think it could be high reward. If she schmoozes a bit and works on her answers it could really pay dividends. But I wouldn't be surprised if no one gives a speech on immigration the time of day if she doesn't deal with this first.

I don't feel there's much risky about a press conference for her, though, that's the frustrating part. Like, what does the media have to upset her with or derail her with? Even Benghazi doesn't really get aired that much these days.

The only thing I can think of is the whole emails issue; it's painful that she still hasn't developed a good response to that, something short and pithy that just shuts the whole thing down.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't feel there's much risky about a press conference for her, though, that's the frustrating part. Like, what does the media have to upset her with or derail her with? Even Benghazi doesn't really get aired that much these days.

The only thing I can think of is the whole emails issue; it's painful that she still hasn't developed a good response to that, something short and pithy that just shuts the whole thing down.

Flubbing an answer on emails again will eat another week. Absolutely. I think she does have a pretty good answer now but it comes out pretty infrequently (because she has been quiet in August).

What reporter is even going to ask about Benghazi? It's going to be emails and Clinton Foundation over and over.

 

[TestOfTide]

Wouldn't the best way to take back the House be to target local purple districts and have a large war chest? I'm not an expert on this but that seems like it would be the best method, especially since the biggest campaign strengths of both Clintons is retail politics.

Don't forget that for typically likely red states and with such gerrymandered districts, it requires running blue dogs in typically likely red districts/states.

Can't run a 50 state strategy without running moderates.

 

[User 463088]

I don't feel there's much risky about a press conference for her, though, that's the frustrating part. Like, what does the media have to upset her with or derail her with? Even Benghazi doesn't really get aired that much these days.

The only thing I can think of is the whole emails issue; it's painful that she still hasn't developed a good response to that, something short and pithy that just shuts the whole thing down.

She has a good answer on the emails. But your problem is that you assume the media wants a good answer. They don't. They want to get her to disqualify herself. That's it.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I think this, in the end, shows why you never understood why Hillary is a better candidate than Sanders.

You're also too interested in optics over effective campaigning.

Yeah, your instincts just seem to be off on a lot of this. Like, all year. I don't think you have a strong grasp of American attitudes and perceptions and politics.

edit: Crab, not you

 

[Y2Kev]

More importantly, Hillary is about to die so I don't think she can hack a press conference.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think this, in the end, shows why you never understood why Hillary is a better candidate than Sanders.

You're also too interested in optics over effective campaigning.

This is literally a terrible post. You just assert a number of statements without bothering to explain any of them, for the sole purpose of looking like an insufferable arsehole. I disagree with a lot of posters on PoliGAF, but most of them I think put effort into their responses and provide interesting arguments or analysis, and I appreciate them and the discussion they provide. You, however, post banal shite, and have accordingly had the rare distinction of going into my ignore list from this point on. I'm letting you know as a courtesy so you don't feel the need to respond to me any more.

 

[Retromelon]

RIP Phyllis Schlafly. Even if you don't agree with her politics you can be classy about it.

On fox a little while ago an interview of one of the trump daughters was aired and she was asked "why does your father want the presidency?" and her reply was that he hates to see incompetence. Trump must hate to look in a mirror

 

[shinra-bansho]

More importantly, Hillary is about to die so I don't think she can hack a press conference.

Anthony's Weiner should hold a press conference in her stead to talk about Huma Liabedinability.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hillary should cast off Huma in a sista soulja moment

 

[User 463088]

: shudders :

When you two post back to back, Hillary kills a Ben Ghazi.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hillary should cast off Huma in a sista soulja moment

But then Huma would spill the beans on how she was aiding and Abedin!

 

[Y2Kev]

Lol ok dap for that

 

[Spoiled Milk]

: shudders :

When you two post back to back, Hillary kills a Ben Ghazi.

I've got a new avatar for shinra.

 

[Revolver]

RIP Phyllis Schlafly. Even if you don't agree with her politics you can be classy about it.

On fox a little while ago an interview of one of the trump daughters was aired and she was asked "why does your father want the presidency?" and her reply was that he hates to see incompetence. Trump must hate to look in a mirror

Ivanka claims that he's not sexist because he hired her. Sorry but nepotism doesn't negate misogyny.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Don't forget that for typically likely red states and with such gerrymandered districts, it requires running blue dogs in typically likely red districts/states.

Can't run a 50 state strategy without running moderates.

While I agree, I don't know how worthwhile it would be for Hillary to be stumping for Blue Dogs in red states. She isn't going to be doing any worthwhile fundraising in Arkansas or Louisiana and she isn't winning those states in the presidential election and so aside from diverting some of the resources she can gain from her massive fundraising numbers, I doubt she'll be out trying to get a lot of moderates in non-swing states elected.

If she's going to try and retail politic to get House seats I think it's better for her to either target the losses in blue and swing states (or near swing states like Missouri) from 2010 and 2014 rather than coming here to Idaho and stumping for Piotrowski in my district. Focus on getting seats back in places like Michigan and Wisconsin before trying to expand the map out imo

 

[whyamihere]

Oh, Phyllis Schlafly is dead. I was wondering why the world suddenly felt a bit brighter.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think local campaign rallies are the most useful thing for her to be doing, though. If they're not headlined as significant in advance, they're usually only covered locally and even then only in passing. That makes their main benefit rallying the people who did attend, which is great and all if we were in the final month and we needed to be able target specific key demographics with an enthusiasm-booster to make sure they vote, but is... underwhelming this far out where you can't guarantee enthusiasm-boosters last all the way until election day, and where you're passing over the chance to get national coverage when doing so.

It's going specific-details at a stage in the campaign where we're big-picture still. Which is... very Clinton, and why I worry.

That was the point. It was the strategy after the DNC I guess; it sort of worked. I guess she wanted focus on fundraising and building up infrastructure. As she was building up many offices, and setting up some ways to get more people out to vote. Letting Trump have the air was a good way to let him hurt himself ; that worked for the time being. Only AFTER Kelly and Bannon he start to 'pivot' ; but that was in the later part of August, and near Labor Day anyway. I image the Clinton Campaign knew of the consequences and stuck with it only until recently seemingly.

 

[whyamihere]

The press pool considered the plane Q&A a press conference. Hooray.

 

[Y2Kev]

The press pool considered the plane Q&A a press conference. Hooray.

yeah like that's going to matter

 

[whyamihere]

yeah like that's going to matter

I just want them to shut up about it.

 

[AniHawk]

would it count as a press conference if hillary showed up at the playstation meeting to reveal the ps4 neo?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I just want them to shut up about it.

It's been one day since Hillary's held a press conference!! What is she trying to hide?

 

[whyamihere]

would it count as a press conference if hillary showed up at the playstation meeting to reveal the ps4 neo?

Lol