ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I voted for Hillary and I'd do it again.
-
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.
Study: Hillary Clinton's ads were almost entirely policy free.
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Status
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
So the rustbelt was just full of trump republicans and always had been? Get real, your countries' future is at stake.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
They were always full of Trump Republicans; you just couldn't see them because Trump never ran before. Look at the election results, Ohio is just as red as fricken' Texas. They ate that shit up. That's not tepid support of Trump ("not a fan") coming from potential Sanders voters; these guys were all in for Trump.
I honestly don't even see how that analogy connects to how voting is done. Hillary is the one throwing the ball, I get that, and I guess Trump would probably be the batter, but who are the voters in this case? Physics? Because I don't think that works when sociology isn't exactly a hard science.
The election is decided based by a third party outside of the participants, the voters. There is nothing that any candidate can do to 'make' anyone vote. All they can do is present themselves. It's basically advertising. But there's no kind of advertising that 'makes' you buy a product. If you're predetermined to not buy something, there's very little that any advertisement can say or present to make you.
Hillary has several barriers that really shouldn't have been there, because of bullshit the GOP spewed, because of her own past genuine fuck ups and present mistakes, etc. I don't think we can say she put on the best presentation she could have, so I do acknowledge her mistakes.
But even at my most critical of her, she still is shines compared to Trump. And if the dumbasses voting can't see that, that's on them.
Earthbound64
Banned
Somewhere, Mitt Romney cries.
cooljeanius
Member
Emphasized the importance of sticking to the script:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=226603778&highlight=#post226603778
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=218355392&highlight=#post218355392
Failed parade:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=215956552&highlight=#post215956552
Update on story behind why the failed parade failed:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=216131962&highlight=#post216131962
I'm having a hard time imagining what not knowing the slang definition of "ether" really has to do with a political campaign...
cooljeanius
Member
Yeah maybe I shouldn't have included that link... the other posts are the more relevant ones.
eqqsquizitine
Member
Given the insanely hyper-partisan nature of your countries politics, the results of a primary process for a single party should never be extrapolated out and thought to apply to the wider public.
Are you fucking serious? The work of actual intelligence agents and the vast amount of circumstantial evidence are not the same as some Glenn Beck/Alex Jones paranoid theory. You honestly gonna pretend there's nothing to see here?
Hyperactivity
Banned
If you're assuming that enough people in enough important spots lacked an ounce of critical thinking skill, then that still doesn't change the situation that you would hope the smarter person not fuck it up against the most incompetent, and honestly, what should have been one of the easiest opponents in political history.
If idiots are going to be idiots, then that just a constant that, to some extent, you're going to have to deal with. Asking this of an individual might not be fair, but for some in a position of political power, I'd rather they figure out where they can improve so that the race isn't even close to swinging the way it did
Even if the country is 99% people who would enjoy a Purge style universe, if you're trying to run for political office and make things better, you're going to have to figure that shit out.
As a voter, I should be figuring out how to best survey the field of politicians, even if they're all trash, to see who it is best to vote for. If I'm running for election, I should be figuring out how best to win votes so as to be able to progress, and even if all the voters are trash, I have to figure out how to get those votes. Take nothing for granted about voter competency, because someone running for election should be doing the best they can to make sure that they have the biggest hand in the result as possible; leaving it to voters is asking for an upset.
Can I ask how then? I mean, whats the magic switch that Hillary didn't flip? I can understand practical measures and better campaigning and everything, but it's doubtful for me that it'd be effective. I mean, I'm sure campaigning would have gathered her more votes than she got, but how can you be convinced it would be enough? Who actually thought "Well, Trump is scum of the highest order, but Hillary didn't come to Nowheresville, MI, so screw her".
Me personally, I feel the media is the most culpable. They painted inaccurate pictures of both candidates by validating the GOP's false allegations. If there is anyone who gave Trump the edge he needed, it's all the reporters who didn't say "Everything about her emails is bullshit, here's what really happened". I think plenty of people didn't vote for her because they thought there must be some legitimacy to the emails thing just because the GOP yelled about it loud enough. But what was Hillary supposed to do about that? You know that defending herself in any way would just be twisted into "SHE DOESN'T EVEN ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HER ACTIONS" or some bullshit like that.
I would also like to point out one thing that I feel everyone is neglecting to mention: During the election EVERYBODY thought she had this in the bag. Not just because of hubris or anything, but the fact htat every major poll had her leading by a wide margin. There were very few, if any, middling polls. All the official polls said she already won the states she needed. As much as we can say she should have campaigned to the best of her ability, even if that's true, it's not like she was lazy out of carelessness. This turnabout was completely unprecedented. No one had ever won a presidency after trailing behind as much as Trump did. That's why no one saw this coming.
So...what is it? It's easy to say "Well, you should have just overcome it" but how? How was she supposed to read people's minds and say the magic words that would break the stubbornness born from the bullshit that the GOP has been heaping on this election for as long as they have? How was she supposed to even see this coming?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What strawman? What cheezcake said was factual. She lost, therefore, in this instance, she wasn't better than him at winning elections.
Hyperactivity
Banned
1. Do I know if that even works? No, I have no fucking clue. But maybe ensuring the blue wall in the midwest holds should be more of a priority.
2. Does anyone think Trump is scum but decide to not vote Hillary because she doesn't campaign better? Yeah, of course. Do I think it makes a lick of sense? No. But someone who gets a better chance to see Hillary's policy, her positives, not because they went and seek it out but because it's shoved down their throats until they get it stuck in their head is a person that's more likely to lose the "both sides are bad" attitude and actually go out and vote.
3. What was Hillary supposed to do about the emails thing? Do a better job with Trump's scandals, with not creating that sort of vulnerability, with getting the issue dismissed earlier.
4. Every poll has her up. Trump's only shot, his absolute only shot, is getting the rust belt + Florida. That's the first thing you lock up. That's absolutely the first thing you deal with. Everyone knew that a mix of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia was the key pathway for any chance at a Trump presidency.
Even before the idea of Trump winning came into play on election night, when Florida was neck and neck, I was disappointed, because it should not have been that close in any way shape or form. This should have been as close to a curbstomp as possible in the modern politics.
5. So how was she supposed to do it? For one, not make the stupider mistakes, like not advertising in Michigan or Wisconsin, not spending money in ambitious longshots like Arizona and Georgia, not drilling the idea that Trump's character wasn't the only issue, but also his policy, and then explaining it, and repeating it, and explaining it, and repeating it, until even those who disagree know that that's your main attack.
And even without those stupid mistakes, she was the one running for president, so ask her. That was her responsibility, and if she and her campaign couldn't win against Donald "Stale cheeto face" Trump, then a good deal of the blame needs to go towards her.
I'm not asking her to be some perfect candidate, but either she made some major basic mistakes, should not have been running for president to begin with, or the democrats just had not viable candidates to beat Donald Trump and we should just resign ourselves to this new reality.
Welp, 3rd party voters gonna be 3rd party voters. If I'm talking to someone who voted green party last year, this is relevant, sure. But if I'm the DNC, why would I want the green party to be a deciding factor in this at all? There's a random factor, you don't have control over them, you can't somehow dictate what the Green Party does.
The people could be what is wrong with the country and that could still be as useless a fact as it is now, because you're effectively throwing in the white flag with that statement.
I mean, seriously, take a second to think about how to proceed from what you're saying.
"The people are what is wrong with this country!" Ok. So are we gonna keep electing Trumps to office? Or constantly be switching back and forth between political parties every 4-8 years? If everyone else is a toddler in the room, you're either resigning yourself to a toddler-run room, or finding some way to get the toddlers under control. But you have no control over whether the toddler is going to act like a toddler. Maybe some of them grow up, maybe some of them don't, but you don't have much control there, do you?
I mean, the basic question, again and again, is what is personally under your own control or influence. Personally, yeah, I should be trying to avoid creating fractures within the left. But if I decided to be an utter shithead, the heads of the left are the heads for a reason, and need to deal with it.
If she's vulnerable to a two decade smear campaign, it's better for all of us that she not run. You can point the finger towards the media and journalism when the media and journalists start talking about how others screwed up. You look at the voters when you're discussing how the party and media screwed up, with other voters. If you're talking about what the democratic party can improve, then you're looking at the democratic party.
If the system is rigged, either it's far too rigged, burn it all down or resign yourself to a rigged system, or work with and against the rigged system at the same time and win the damn election
^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't change a damn thing about her losing to a turd in a suit
It would be nice if our politicians had more catchphrases and empty platitudes if that's what's needed to get elected, because once they're elected they actually have the power and a 4 year breather to try and improve the voters so that they're less vulnerable to that next time around.
This is definitely true for the more extreme members of the Bernie wing. The primaries are over, Clinton has been banished to the shadowrealm, she as a personality isn't relevant anymore. Calling her candidate A to figure out wtf happened without the stupid vitriol it brings up might just be preferable
Yeah, see this is a good example of where I think it's fine for someone to talk about what a voter should know at a basic level. But not when discussing what, if you were DNC dictator, you would do differently.
El_Tiguere
Member
We can't forget that the United States has become an Oligarchy/Plutocracy, and it did so further under Obama and the Clintons. Bernie won the under-45 vote because his main message was to fight to restore power for the people against the oligarchs who own our government through their lobbying and donations. Hillary was the oligarchy in the flesh. Democrats like Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of the old corrupt guard are the oligarchy.
The bottom 90% of Americans desperately need a champion for them, and many made the terrible terrible bet that it would be Donald Trump. We have a great opportunity in 2018/2020 to capture those that feel duped by a sleazebag licking the boots of his handlers out of Mar-a-Lago.
The bottom 90% of Americans desperately need a champion for them, and many made the terrible terrible bet that it would be Donald Trump. We have a great opportunity in 2018/2020 to capture those that feel duped by a sleazebag licking the boots of his handlers out of Mar-a-Lago.
Democrats are generally hostile to this message and at best will quintuple down on the lesser of two evils argument.
Trump won because Hillary didn't inspire people to get out and vote. the difference between her performance and Obamas is that people just didn't care enough about her to even show up. It wasn't a huge surge of Trump supporters, it was other people staying home because on offer was a bad candidate who didn't appeal to them at all.
I know right? Seemed pretty self explanatory to me.
Yeah, I agree. The problem isn't that Clinton included identity politics in her platform. The problem is that she didn't campaign on policies that addressed the concerns of the working class at large. White working class voters didn't have much reason to vote for Clinton. Trump's policies are going to ravage their communities, but he used racism and economic appeals to convince a section of the white working class to vote for him.
Autoignition
Member
Seriously, this. America has a serious scum problem that arose with the advent of conservative media, and it's only getting worse. We will never see a Ronald Reagan 48-state sweep in a presidential election again in our lifetimes, probably.
Honestly I think one of the biggest issues with 2016 is that Trump was so bad that no one thought he would win. So they stayed home. Because most people don't like voting, or it's too much of a pain in the ass to get to the polls in the first place. People thinking that Hillary was going to win wasn't just "smug Democrats" or her most hardcore supporters. People legitimately stayed home because they didn't think their vote would be needed, because it seemed like an obvious choice. I've spoken to women in middle America who sincerely regret their decision of inaction on election day.
A huge problem in America is that we think too much of ourselves and of our neighbors. Too many people thought we were better than to allow a Trump presidency. They were wrong. We need to finally come to grips with the fact that there are millions of votes already in the bag for any Republican, regardless of how terrible he is.
Dems can use Trump as a rallying cry to get voters to the polls in 2020, but I guarantee you that this will be a lesson the country forgets 8 years after he's out of office. There's no easy solution to this.
I don't care what they think. I care what they advocate for and actually do. They didn't just tolerate Trump. They threw their support behind him. Clearly they have no standards if they decide Donald Trump deserves a vote.
Henchmen21
Banned
Wrong. These two posts continue to show just how much of a bubble you clintonites are still in.
No only YOU thought she would win. Every single Bernie supporter/Independent was screaming that she would lose but you guys had your fingers in your ears saying "La La La not listening". Go look at the pic posted of the Hillary supporter wearing that dumbass t-shirt. That's how in the bubble you guys were. So stop with this "EVERYONE" thought she was going to win BS.
And no she did not have a "healthy lead" in the polls. Her numbers were constantly within MOE.
But keep using the same tactics that lost every level of government from the bottom up. That's sure to work the second time.
pretty done
Member
Was it really a terrible decision to elect Dubya over Kerry? Come on man.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
How does this argument work when most of those very same voters were needed in order to elect President Obama?
Autoignition
Member
Or maybe you could read my post again, this time with some comprehension, and realize that there was no point at all in which I was speaking about hardcore Hillary supporters. I even gave a disclaimer otherwise.
Dear lord. Sometimes I feel like some people here just read what they want to read in comments and don't ever process what people actually say.
Henchmen21
Banned
Lol at Gutter_Trash talking about winning a bet when Hillary would win. Wonder how much he lost.
Henchmen21
Banned
I did read. You didn't. Direct quote from you
People stayed home because Hillary didn't give them a good enough reason to go vote for her.
Autoignition
Member
It's almost like I went on to extrapolate that sentence in the following paragraph and gave an example, and that paragraph existed in the larger context of the entire rest of the post. Fancy that.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This is essentially correct, Trump didn't inspire some incredible Republican turnout increase over Romney. What did happen was Democratic turnout collapsed, especially in critical swing state counties that went from Bush to Obama.
The fact of the matter is that no one liked Hillary and no one wanted to vote for her. It's ironic that Hillary ended up being less electable than Trump considering that the people backing Hillary purposely tried to get Trump as their opponent in the first place, an amazing example of hubris, arrogance, and ultimately suicide.
The entirety of Hillary Clinton is basically summarized in "Ozymandias":
jack_package_200
Banned
A major miscalculation was relying on people to be decent human beings and to say no to the known sexual predator and known racist.
I guess we have to accept that people are not inherently decent and work on a new strategy.
I guess we have to accept that people are not inherently decent and work on a new strategy.
Perfect Blue
Banned
Damn, hard to believe someone wasn't inspired by inane shitty memes like "YAS QUEEN" and "Hillary is my abuela".
Henchmen21
Banned
Which I quoted the first time I replied to your post. Fancy that.
Your example also doesn't wash when there are numerous people who stayed home due to disenfranchisement not egotistical "she's going to win anyways" bs. There's a reason her rallies were middling
This. People weren't voting for her but against Trump. You may call that semantics but it makes a big difference.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I certainly voted for her and not just against Trump. Am I no longer a part of people?
jack_package_200
Banned
Autoignition
Member
No, you didn't quote the entire post, you quoted the one part that allowed you to beat your chest and declare that you're right. And you want to talk about bubbles?
My post was about how people are blind to the sheer force of conservative media and the number of people wrapped up in those tentacles. The left doesn't have a Limbaugh and a Hannity and an O'Reilly and a Kelly and a Jones working around the clock. At most we have, what, Maddow? One person, on for one hour a night five days a week? And she's not even all that explosive or hyper-partisan.
People on the left don't realize that conservative talk radio paired with Fox News is the bread and butter of the modern GOP movement. We try to fight them with facts, but what do facts do in a world where conservative media creates an alternate reality for half of the country?
My post was about how the left needs to realize this. It's a strong, powerful, constant apparatus of propaganda on the right, and until we come to terms with the fact that we need to show up at the polls to offset the Republican hysteria that's present at every single election, we will continue to lose.
nitekrawlwer
Member
Don't forget neo-liberal 3rd way democrat ;-)
Henchmen21
Banned
Exception not the rule. I've talked to far more people that were voting against Trump than for her.
Besides, had she run against a sane republican rather than Trump, she probably would have lost the popular vote along with the EC and be looked at a even more of a failure than she is now.
Honestly, people prefer to vote FOR somebody, not vote against. It's never a safe bet to assume people are just making comparisons and choosing the best option, because one option is always to just stay home and let everybody else vote.
You need people who are passionate about your candidacy to win elections. Trump had that in the places where it mattered most. She didn't.
edit: I hate to bring the Bernie thing up again, because I know the Hillary people are tired of hearing it, but he always had a more passionate base as evidenced by his crowds and the donations he got from regular voters. And a lot of them were in important states that Trump won. He was a populist in a year where populist sentiment was a powerful motivating factor for a lot of voters. There's no question in my mind that he was the better candidate.
Vicetrailia
Member
So hillary running at all was hubris and suicide? Looks like she would have lost to anyone.
starchild excalibur
Member
This kind of thinking is problematic. While I agree with you that not focusing enough on policy-specific ads isn't necessarily what doomed her, it could still have played a part of it. Her loss was due to many factors of varying degrees, not just one.
nitekrawlwer
Member
We all have our anecdotal evidence now don't we. Anything other than that to bear out your assertion? If not please forgive me if I don't believe it.
Remember that Hillary only lost by a few thousand votes, too. Had she done almost anything differently, Democratic turnout would have been higher and she'd be the president.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Most likely. Bernie would have put up a fight against Trump and considering how much better than Hillary he was polling against Trump he probably would have won it.
Perfect Blue
Banned
If Comey didn't come out with his bullshit press conference and extra emails shtick, she would have won. Oh well
Autoignition
Member
Like a lot of people have been saying, it wasn't just one thing for Hillary. It wasn't just her ad strategy. Voter suppression is real (for god's sake, there was a court case about voter suppression on the day of the election). Russia meddling is real. Voter apathy is real. Sexism is real. A 30-year GOP smear campaign against the Clintons is real. Bitterness from Bernie supporters is real. Bad tactical campaigning is real.
Hubris was a factor, but you can't just blame it on one thing.
Henchmen21
Banned
The very reason this thread exists. The fact that she was using fear of Trump in her ads instead of policy to shore up her numbers (and it still didn't work)
Autoignition
Member
Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?
Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked