Support NeoGAF

[TheLaughingStock]

Just because the people want easy answers to difficult questions doesn't mean we should give it to them.

The easiest answer is probably not commenting at all. However, it could be the most harmful answer too because Bernie planted the idea unopposed. The least Perez could do is say the ruling and billionaire class is on your side and Bernie is a confused socialist. Then Perez could show receipts making Bernie Sanders look foolish and hyperbolic. The current approach lets people fill in the gaps I would think because he preferred not to go down that road. I suspect Perez didn't want to flat out lie nor get into a direct confrontation with Bernie on air personally.

 

[RDreamer]

People openly mocked Trump for bothering with those places, even.

I still don't think the Trump campaign were masterful geniuses, though. They just had the benefit of several factors going in their favor at once, including their own hubris.

Were they mocking him for going into places like Pennsylvania? I remember mocking him for thinking he'd turn California and/or New York red. Those are states he openly talked about changing, and that was ridiculous. Him going to Pennsylvania or Wisconsin is smart.

I'm still not entirely convince Hillary just going to these places like Wisconsin is some silver bullet. There was something more inherently wrong with her as a candidate and the decades of shit against her coupled with the immediate accusations and news by people like Comey. She was an unfavorable candidate and my gut tells me if you're unfavorable you don't completely flip the table just by showing up more. And if you look at the traditional campaigning mechanisms she absolutely fucking dwarfed Trump's mechanisms. In Pennsylvania she had hundreds of official staff and Trump had like 12. She and her surrogates flooded that state right at the end, too. Still lost.

Not saying her plan wasn't bad. I still do think she should have gone to Wisconsin more. I just don't think that's the silver bullet everyone's looking for. Trump was an untraditional candidate and it was a really untraditional election year, and looking to traditional campaigning isn't going to tell the entire story, unfortunately.

 

[legacyzero]

And he failed to raise money the moment it was going to anyone but him.

Obama has faced the exact same issue w/ OFA.

You can't rely on people having the reaction of a 15yo girls at a Jonas Bros or Beatles concert and opening their wallets because of it.

Yes and no. I agree that Bernie didn't do enough for down-tickets. He's perhaps too principled in that regard. You can't say the same about Clinton's principles. But she would have at least done a lot of justice for candidates below.

Bern ain't perfect. I agree. And you can't just strawman the fact the fact that he ran a campaign, front and back without corporate interests. He may have lost (THUMB. SCALE.) but he still did it, regardless of the goalpost you move

 

[TyrantII]

perez represents the majority establishment view among elected democrats. he is flat-out unwilling to blame the rich for rigging the system at everyone else's expense, when that's what people clearly want to hear.

Because it's a fine line to walk when you rely on the Liberal Rich to fund the revolution. Citizens united changed everything, and you can't have them mistake an attack on the plutocrats as an attack on all the rich.

There's problems that have to be addressed that come with being a big tent party with multiple large coalitions. Throwing the funding under the bus when the laws will remain the same isn't smart strategy. After all, citizens united wiped out all the gains Democrats were making in small donations.

 

[wildfire]

The core promise of Trump's campaign was to 'Make America Great Again,' but only 35% of voters actually think he's accomplished that goal to 55% who think he hasn't.

If that was the poll question that's really dumb. Under normal circumstances I would cut a President some slack 3 months in. It's Trump so he won't get any slack.

What they should've asked is if Trump has made America worse than when he came in. The majority saying yes would've driven the point home and left no to argue otherwise.

 

[ElFly]

People openly mocked Trump for bothering with those places, even.

I still don't think the Trump campaign were masterful geniuses, though. They just had the benefit of several factors going in their favor at once, including their own hubris.

I don't think they were genius

but they decided on a strategy, committed to it and, even after announcing it to the world, their opposition decided to ignore them and let Trump run unopposed

they were just competent and the Hillary campaign openly disregarded any caution

What original post said no one? Which post are you talking about that had insight? I'm responding to a bunch of people that said NeoGAF was 100% sure Hillary would win.

well

You realize the polls said the nationwide aggregate was correct. They predicted Hillary would win by as much as she did. And the state polls were within margin of error, too. No one was saying it was 100% chance of Hillary winning. That's ridiculous and didn't happen. There was always a chance of Trump winning, and that chance came from the fact that with the electoral college state you could have a tipping point caused by a bit of difference even within the margin of error.

Where did I deny any of this? And none of this proves you should never believe polls give actual data.

eh dunno if that's the case, but whenever I hear people going "the polls were correct, it was just chance, the polls were in the margin of error" etc etc, I suspect the person is trying to exculpate Hillary as if this defeat was a random stroke of luck instead of massive incompetence

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

If that was the poll question that's really dumb. Under normal circumstances I would cut a President some slack 3 months in. It's Trump so he won't get any slack.

What they should've asked is if Trump has made America worse than when he came in. The majority saying yes would've driven the point home and left no to argue otherwise.

tbf if the reason you think America needed restored greatness was the conspicuous absence of a white man from the presidency then it would make sense that you believed he'd accomplished his big campaign promise.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I don't think they were genius

but they decided on a strategy, committed to it and, even after announcing it to the world, their opposition decided to ignore them and let Trump run unopposed

they were just competent and the Hillary campaign openly disregarded any caution

The Trump campaign was anything but competent.

This is some serious whitewashing of history here.

I mean they literally had a 12 year old kid running a campaign office in Colorado.