Study: Hillary Clinton's ads were almost entirely policy free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
eBay Huckster said:
From my time spent on the ground in Ohio last fall, both wings were turning people off in about equal number.
Click to expand...

So why haven't you and the rest of your faction reflected on how you were turning people off yet? All your faction has done is blame everyone else but yourselves.

91% of Bernie supporters turned out for the Queen in 2016, more than the number of Hilllary supporters who turned out for Obama in 2008. Stop blaming the "Bernie Bros", we turned out for your candidate. Like I said before when people bring up the boogeyman of the Bernie supporters: Tough. Don't blame us. Blame yourself or God.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
So why haven't you and the rest of your faction reflected on how you were turning people off yet?
Click to expand...

I mean, I could opine for pages about (ultimately) unappealing policies mixed with an unappealing candidate, but at the end of the day you're still going to be asking me to answer for half the site as if I haven't already reflected on this in multiple GAF threads, on social media, and in my conversations in real life with my friends in Socialist Alternative.

Autoignition said:
Who in this thread is blaming Bernie supporters???? Serious question.
Click to expand...

There's also this: I'm not blaming Bernie supporters for shit, aside from the group on this site constantly crying wolf and using the same bad-faith arguments as the parts of the Clinton side they constantly bitch about.

Like, the overwhelming majority of the Democrats on my social media (between FB and Twitter) voted for him in the primary. I didn't have issues with any of them, for some reason!
 
Unknown Soldier said:
So why haven't you and the rest of your faction reflected on how you were turning people off yet? All your faction has done is blame everyone else but yourselves.

91% of Bernie supporters turned out for the Queen in 2016, more than the number of Hilllary supporters who turned out for Obama in 2008. Stop blaming the "Bernie Bros", we turned out for your candidate. Like I said before when people bring up the boogeyman of the Bernie supporters: Tough. Don't blame us. Blame yourself or God.
Click to expand...

Who in this thread is blaming Bernie supporters???? Serious question.
 
Complaints about "YASS QUEEN" read exactly the same to me as Boston parade organizers complaining about Rainbows. There's exactly one demographic who was doing that.
 
Autoignition said:
Michael Dukakis would like to have a word with you.

Besides, we're going ahead and assuming that Sanders would've won all the states Hillary did. He wouldn't have gotten Virginia, and he might have lost Maine. Nevada and New Mexico would've been toss-ups. He'd have had to make up the numbers somewhere else. MI, WI, and PA would've helped, but not enough, even if he kept NV and NM.

I'm starting to get dreadfully sick of re-litigating the primary, though. Point is: fascism bad, election over, please to be voting blue in the future.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming Sanders would have won every state Hillary won, I'm saying it is apparent he would have at least done better in the rust belt region of the country. If he won MI, WI, and PA, he could have still won without Virginia, but then if he lost Nevada and New Mexico too he would have been toast. Ultimately we don't know what would have happened in those states, but I do think there is enough evidence to say he would have most likely gotten better support in the rust belt regions
 
KRod-57 said:
I'm not assuming Sanders would have won every state Hillary won, I'm saying it is apparent he would have at least done better in the rust belt region of the country. If he won MI, WI, and PA, he could have still won without Virginia, but then if he lost Nevada and New Mexico too he would have been toast. Ultimately we don't know what would have happened in those states, but I do think there is enough evidence to say he would have most likely gotten better support in the rust belt regions
Click to expand...

That's fair, and I do agree with you on this point. He likely would have won MI and WI, maybe PA, maybe not. But that alone does not an electoral win make. Though I do disagree that he would've won VA. Hillary only won it narrowly and likely only because Tim Kaine was on her ballot.
 
Autoignition said:
That's fair, and I do agree with you on this point. He likely would have won MI and WI, maybe PA, maybe not. But that alone does not an electoral win make. Though I do disagree that he would've won VA. Hillary only won it narrowly and likely only because Tim Kaine was on her ballot.
Click to expand...

Hillary is also a very mainstream Democrat, and Virginia is essentially ground-zero for establishment Dems. "Big Blue" in the the DC burbs, where many government departments are centered, etc.
 
eBay Huckster said:
Like, the overwhelming majority of the Democrats on my social media (between FB and Twitter) voted for him in the primary. I didn't have issues with any of them, for some reason!
Click to expand...

okay, so this word choice was actually a bold-faced lie

I had an issue with about 5 of my FB friends being very quick to call me a "neoliberal shill" and opining about how they couldn't possibly understand why I could prefer Clinton over Sanders in any way and generally acting like the worst parts of either wing here, before I'd even decided who to vote for, and in large part it's why I swung for Clinton as hard as I did

but in general, everyone was amicably snarking back and forth about their preferred D candidate's flaws all year long, not pretending that their candidate had none
 
El_Tiguere said:
I patently disagree. UNLIKE with Hillary (two-faced when it comes to black people), the contrast between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on African American issues could not be any more stark. While Trump was licking the boots of the police force at every step of the way, Bernie never sugar coated his support for Black Lives Matter and reforming the criminal justice system (and legalizing weed, which Clinton could not be bothered with).
Click to expand...

Bernie's problem with minorities was more in his campaigning than his policies. Sort of like Hillary's problem with not talking about her policies in the general election. Some people judge solely based on what they see in a speech and simply don't know of his policies on race and crime, and some people do know of his positions on race and crime but take a lack of focus in rhetoric to mean a lack of focus in power as well.

Hillary was far better at talking to minorities, though it'd take awhile to fully explain why, and has been covered pretty exhaustively already in other topics.

I don't necessarily think this means minorities would dislike bernie so much they'd stay home or vote for trump though.
 
eBay Huckster said:
okay, so this word choice was actually a bold-faced lie

I had an issue with about 5 of my FB friends being very quick to call me a "neoliberal shill" and opining about how they couldn't possibly understand why I could prefer Clinton over Sanders in any way and generally acting like the worst parts of either wing here, before I'd even decided who to vote for

but in general, everyone was amicably snarking back and forth about their preferred D candidate's flaws all year long
Click to expand...

My offer is open to you as well, send me a PM if you're interested.
 
kirblar said:
Complaints about "YASS QUEEN" read exactly the same to me as Boston parade organizers complaining about Rainbows. There's exactly one demographic who was doing that.
Click to expand...
It's not really apparent on a forum what demographic was doing that. It was mostly just popping up in Hillary thread's after a while so no surprise people connected it with that and grew annoyed with it like they would with other fanboy expressions.
I'd wager that most people have no clue that "yas" originated from the lgbt community
 
It's always interesting to see that only white guys are voting for Sanders although we know that the turn out of minorities for Clinton was a declining mess.
 
StormKing said:
I think Bernie was a weak candidate in the Democratic primary because he was not sufficiently prepared to run.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Bernie's campiagn was enormously successful when you consider the support (or lack there-of) he got from the DNC, and subsequently the amount of money he was able to raise compared to Clinton ($200 million vs $1.2 billion) Had he been the Dem nominee for the general then they DNC would have no choice but to back him.
 
msdstc said:
Oh god I massively disagree with this.
Click to expand...

i mean, on here there really was only one demographic saying it unironically

UFO said:
I completely disagree. Bernie's campiagn was enormously successful when you consider the support (or lack there-of) he got from the DNC, and subsequently the amount of money he was able to raise compared to Clinton ($200 million vs $1.2 billion) Had he been the Dem nominee for the general then they DNC would have no choice but to back him.
Click to expand...

he was a strong candidate insofar as a lot of people found him inspiring, yeah

he wasn't strong insofar as he struggled throughout last year to expand his voter coalition beyond that initial (very large!) bunch. if he'd started laying groundwork in 2013 that might've been more muted, but it is what it is
 
Sander's campaign was quite successful that an ex-third party canditate could win so many states despite the lack of support of the party.
We all know the primaries were never supposed to be a fair contest between different candidates.
 
eBay Huckster said:
i mean, on here there really was only one demographic saying it unironically



he was a strong candidate insofar as a lot of people found him inspiring, yeah

he wasn't strong insofar as he struggled throughout last year to expand his voter coalition beyond that initial (very large!) bunch. if he'd started laying groundwork in 2013 that might've been more muted, but it is what it is
Click to expand...

Yes, and my point is that his late struggles are (in part) because of his lack of support from the DNC. Had he received the same type of support as Clinton I believe his campaigning could have been even stronger, expanding into the southern regions he missed, and he would have been a much better opponent to Trump.
 
eBay Huckster said:
hanging out in the poligaf thread often, even if it's just to lurk. the very gay majority of that thread was the only group really doing this
Click to expand...

were random gaffers popping into poligaf threads to scope out this demographic you speak of and getting annoyed at them? Bullshit.
 
eBay Huckster said:
As opposed to the apathy of that 45%, who couldn't even turn out in high enough numbers to swing the primary in spite of literally being the largest age segment in the party and allegedly having an Inspiring True Progressive to vote for?
Click to expand...

That is what is utterly messed up about the whole thing. People DID show up, and people DID want to vote for Bernie, but the DNC made damn sure that there would be barriers all along the way, especially for young independent voters trying to find ways to have their voices heard through Democrat primaries. The answer they ultimately got? the DNC is a private institution (read: we serve our corporate donors first) so only insiders can decide. And then you wonder why people hate the Democrat Party?

eBay Huckster said:
the Clinton wing reflects on why it doesn't seem to be able to inspire much of any brand loyalty...
Click to expand...

Because they are corrupt and Americans are more and more tired of corrupt politicians...

eBay Huckster said:
and the Obama wing reflects on how much of a fuckin' mess the party infrastructure got to be in over the last 8 years?
Click to expand...

Because the infrastructure keeps serving corporate interests first, and people are FED UP. Obama was a Wall Street puppet at the end of the day, and gave the health care sector a nice pretty profit bonanza on the backs of increasing costs for most Americans. People are FED UP. The right found their outsider to "drain the swamp", while the corporations were successful in slipping Hillary through the nomination.
 
msdstc said:
were random gaffers popping into poligaf threads to scope out this demographic you speak of and getting annoyed at them? Bullshit.
Click to expand...

no, it's more like random gaffers were getting annoyed by random clinton supporters and decided everyone said "yas queen" and rhetorically jerked off to an image of the butcher of benghazi every morning

much like how random gaffers were getting annoyed by random sanders supporters and decided everyone was white, aged 25, and very mad about banks and weed

in that sure, there were a few people fitting both descriptions, but they were a very distinct subset of posters if you ever actually bothered to get to know any of them
 
Kinyou said:
It's not really apparent on a forum what demographic was doing that. It was mostly just popping up in Hillary thread's after a while so no surprise people connected it with that and grew annoyed with it like they would with other fanboy expressions.
I'd wager that most people have no clue that "yas" originated from the lgbt community
Click to expand...

msdstc said:
Oh god I massively disagree with this.
Click to expand...
"YASSS QUEEN" is very much a gay thing- http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yaass Before Hillary, it was popstars.
That is what is utterly messed up about the whole thing. People DID show up, and people DID want to vote for Bernie, but the DNC made damn sure that there would be barriers all along the way, especially for young independent voters trying to find ways to have their voices heard through Democrat primaries. The answer they ultimately got? the DNC is a private institution (read: we serve our corporate donors first) so only insiders can decide. And then you wonder why people hate the Democrat Party?
Click to expand...
Clinton won 2/3s of Democrats in the primary election. http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/ Bernie got the same proportion, but less than a quarter of the electorate was non-Democrat.

You are telling us there's 13 million disenfranchised voters out there to make up that gap? Excuse us if we don't believe you.
 
eBay Huckster said:
he was a strong candidate insofar as a lot of people found him inspiring, yeah

he wasn't strong insofar as he struggled throughout last year to expand his voter coalition beyond that initial (very large!) bunch. if he'd started laying groundwork in 2013 that might've been more muted, but it is what it is
Click to expand...

The thing is that he wouldn't have been "laying groundwork" at all because he basically jumped in at the last moment as a message candidate. He wasn't even expecting to do anything except bring up some things he thought were important so the presumptive nominee would hear about them.

The fact that he ended up being as strong as he was despite suddenly jumping and starting with zero donations, zero staff, zero support from the party he wasn't even technically a registered member of, zero name recognition, and zero ambitions to accomplish anything other than get his message heard should have itself been a huge warning siren for the campaign of the presumptive nominee which had been preparing for nearly 30 years at that point and which had already been defeated once by future President Obama.
 
eBay Huckster said:
no, it's more like random gaffers were getting annoyed by random clinton supporters and decided everyone said "yas queen" and rhetorically jerked off to an image of the butcher of benghazi every morning

much like how random gaffers were getting annoyed by random sanders supporters and decided everyone was white, aged 25, and very mad about banks and weed

in that sure, there were a few people fitting both descriptions, but they were a very distinct subset of posters if you ever actually bothered to get to know any of them
Click to expand...

kirblar said:
"YASSS QUEEN" is very much a gay thing- http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yaass Before Hillary, it was popstars.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, the point stands not everybody looks at it and says oh gay people say it so it's bad! Most people just associate it with it being plastered all over social media as with any other meme.

edit- I'll change it to many not most if thats better.
 
Autoignition said:
Seriously. I'll be the first person to admit that she took the "Blue Wall" for granted. Hillary has always self-proclaimed to be a bad candidate, and her campaign managers sure as hell didn't do her any favors. She's like the kid on the bench going "put me in, coach!" even though she was crappy at tryouts, because she knows she can perform in the actual game but fails to impress otherwise.

The whole Dem party fucked up in 2016. This shouldn't be news to anyone. We took Obama's popularity for granted and got lazy.
Click to expand...

Chuck Schumers own admission says that this is not the case. They were courting Republican voters over Democratic voters and they were knew they were going to lose D votes. They knew it. They just thought they were going to gain more Republican voters instead. Thats not taking the Blue Wall it for granted.
 
msdstc said:
That's all well and good, the point stands not everybody looks at it and says oh gay people say it so it's bad!
Click to expand...

that's not what i'm arguing, though

i'm saying everyone associated it with this board's clinton supporters, specifically because a very active (and ultimately tiny) subset kept saying it, and that subset happened to be mostly gay people

(and her campaign store having items that say cringeworthy shit ≠ her supporters actually saying that cringeworthy shit)
 
eBay Huckster said:
that's not what i'm arguing, though

i'm saying everyone associated it with this board's clinton supporters, specifically because a very active (and ultimately tiny) subset kept saying it, and that subset happened to be mostly gay people

(and her campaign store having items that say cringeworthy shit ≠ her supporters actually saying that cringeworthy shit)
Click to expand...

That's fine... read how this argument started. The argument started with the implication that the anger was thinly veiled homophobia. It wasn't. It's a stupid phrase on social media.
 
water_wendi said:
Chuck Schumers own admission says that this is not the case. They were courting Republican voters over Democratic voters and they were knew they were going to lose D votes. They knew it. They just thought they were going to gain more Republican voters instead. Thats not taking the Blue Wall it for granted.
Click to expand...

WTF SCHUMER.

Schumer's gotta go, man. I'm tired of his crap.
 
msdstc said:
That's fine... read how this argument started. The argument started with the implication that the anger was thinly veiled homophobia. It wasn't. It's a stupid phrase on social media.
Click to expand...

i probably read his post wrong, then, because i read the "exactly one demographic" to refer to the people actually using "YASS QUEEN" unironically

e: or apparently i read it right? huh.

Unknown Soldier said:
The thing is that he wouldn't have been "laying groundwork" at all because he basically jumped in at the last moment as a message candidate. He wasn't even expecting to do anything except bring up some things he thought were important so the presumptive nominee would hear about them.

The fact that he ended up being as strong as he was despite suddenly jumping and starting with zero donations, zero staff, zero support from the party he wasn't even technically a registered member of, zero name recognition, and zero ambitions to accomplish anything other than get his message heard should have itself been a huge warning siren for the campaign of the presumptive nominee which had been preparing for nearly 30 years at that point and which had already been defeated once by future President Obama.
Click to expand...

i mean, yeah, in retrospective i wish clinton hadn't run at all if she was just going to wind up completely ignoring the warning signs that were already there (let alone the ones that popped up throughout the general election!)

but by calendar year 2016, i think his expectations were higher than "message candidate with single-digit vote share"
 
msdstc said:
That's fine... read how this argument started. The argument started with the implication that the anger was thinly veiled homophobia. It wasn't. It's a stupid phrase on social media.
Click to expand...
It's fine to find it annoying (it was, I wasn't a fan either!) It's that when only gay men are saying the phrase and people are using it as an excuse for their lack of support, it's very hard for me to not read that excuse in the same way you would read the "identity politics" excuse.
 
El_Tiguere said:
That is what is utterly messed up about the whole thing. People DID show up, and people DID want to vote for Bernie, but the DNC made damn sure that there would be barriers all along the way, especially for young independent voters trying to find ways to have their voices heard through Democrat primaries. The answer they ultimately got? the DNC is a private institution (read: we serve our corporate donors first) so only insiders can decide. And then you wonder why people hate the Democrat Party?
Click to expand...
This shit again? If you want a say in the Democratic Party, you SHOULD be a Democrat.

El_Tiguere said:
Because the infrastructure keeps serving corporate interests first, and people are FED UP. Obama was a Wall Street puppet at the end of the day, and gave the health care sector a nice pretty profit bonanza on the backs of increasing costs for most Americans. People are FED UP. The right found their outsider to "drain the swamp", while the corporations were successful in slipping Hillary through the nomination.
Click to expand...
The ACA bent the insurance cost curve. It fucking bent. That means cost have gone up more slowly since the implementation of the ACA than in the years before. By all means, though, hold out for Medicare for all while medical expenses rise higher than they would have without the ACA because the good is the true enemy of the perfect.
 
animlboogy said:
People inside the Trump campaign seemed shook that they actually won lmao
Click to expand...

Did you see pictures of Trump the night of the election? Trump himself was legit shook that he was winning. He was not expecting to win. He didn't even have a contingency plan for actually winning. The tiny venue he booked for his speech on election night (contrasted with that gaudy ridiculous convention hall Hillary booked) implied that he was expecting to deliver a concession speech.

eBay Huckster said:
but by calendar year 2016, i think his expectations were higher than "message candidate with single-digit vote share"
Click to expand...

Well, I think at some point when you realize you actually have a chance to win something then you actually begin to want it. When he actually fought Iowa to a tie was about when he realized something bigger than he expected was happening here.
 
Autoignition said:
WTF SCHUMER.

Schumer's gotta go, man. I'm tired of his crap.
Click to expand...

i feel it would be remiss of me if i dont present the quote itself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438481/chuck-schumer-democrats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs

At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party’s dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Click to expand...

And i dont think anybody is going to go. Which is amazing because all the same faces that were there before being obliterated are not only still there but elevated to leadership positions. Theres no change coming to the Democratic party any time soon.
 
Boney said:
I know, this is spilt milk but thought it'd be interesting to share considering people deny that Clinton's policy message was obscure and unfocused. Also, considering how much more Clinton outspent Trump, fundraising and cozying it up with corporate donors isn't a priority or not even a necessity.
Click to expand...

I think one important point is that Trump was your not your average right wing republican candidate, in a lot of ways he did not follow usual republican policies... for instance TTP and trade agreements, reviving broken industries/towns was usually left candidate message.... fixing banking system, fixing politics so corporations and wealthy individuals cant pay to get new laws made, etc, etc.... heck he talked about less wars and how america should not be world's policeman.

Thats all democratic candidate message usually.

It sounded pretty weak when Clinton said how she is against TTP, late into the fight and also something that Obama pushed for, not against.

So what exactly could have been her message? That she supports half of the things that Trump said year ago? Thats why message was against the man saying those things, because there was no way he would implement a lot of those, which he wont.

In any case, that late FBI memo/tweet whatever it was likely changed the outcome, not the ads by long shot.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Well, I think at some point when you realize you actually have a chance to win something then you actually begin to want it. When he actually fought Iowa to a tie was about when he realized something bigger than he expected was happening here.
Click to expand...

yeah, so in that sense: by overall standards, he did incredible considering the sheer amount of clearing-out on the clinton campaign's part and his own lack of institutional connection to the party, but by his own standards toward the end of the process, he probably thinks he could've done better. (in which case it would've made sense in retrospective to start getting the message out a couple years earlier, and especially to tailor it somewhat to the older non-white voters who were on the fence about him who wound up supporting clinton by such an absurd margin)

also, i appreciate that we're actually talking civilly here
 
animlboogy said:
Eh. I'm still honestly kind of shocked by how much traction that got. I recall a story about a huge spike in people looking up the word, and then a few days later, like a boil growing and exploding with puss, it suddenly became "a thing."



It was spun into "all Trump voters are deplorable," which was never what she said. Her statement was meant as an olive branch to conservatives who wouldn't want to be caught dead near the alt-right.
Click to expand...
Well exactly, how did she not see that coming?
 
animlboogy said:
Eh. I'm still honestly kind of shocked by how much traction that got. I recall a story about a huge spike in people looking up the word, and then a few days later, like a boil growing and exploding with puss, it suddenly became "a thing."

Her statement was that what was pushing Trump over the top was a "basket of deplorables" who were coming out of the woodwork. They weren't the majority, they were just enough to keep him winning in the primaries. And she was actually right about that. It's undeniable that during the campaign and moreso since the win, a lot of horrific, regressive ideas are suddenly common in public spaces. They aren't the majority... but they're active and larger than we thought.

It was spun into "all Trump voters are deplorable," which was never what she said. Her statement was meant as an olive branch to conservatives who wouldn't want to be caught dead near the alt-right.

Then again, these are a lot of the same "moderate conservatives" who read the words "Black Lives Matter" as "Blacks Are Better" so she was probably playing with fire using that kind of logic.
Click to expand...

It was a classic political exploitation. Remember how Kerry got his reputation for being a "flip-flopper"? The ad was just half of a sentence taken completely out of context of what was a reasonable response to a question, and it tanked his whole campaign.

Hillary should've known better. It was a rookie mistake, and she's too seasoned of a veteran to have let that slide.
 
animlboogy said:
Eh. I'm still honestly kind of shocked by how much traction that got. I recall a story about a huge spike in people looking up the word, and then a few days later, like a boil growing and exploding with puss, it suddenly became "a thing."

Her statement was that what was pushing Trump over the top was a "basket of deplorables" who were coming out of the woodwork. They weren't the majority, they were just enough to keep him winning in the primaries. And she was actually right about that. It's undeniable that during the campaign and moreso since the win, a lot of horrific, regressive ideas are suddenly common in public spaces. They aren't the majority... but they're active and larger than we thought.

It was spun into "all Trump voters are deplorable," which was never what she said. Her statement was meant as an olive branch to conservatives who wouldn't want to be caught dead near the alt-right.

Then again, these are a lot of the same "moderate conservatives" who read the words "Black Lives Matter" as "Blacks Are Better" so she was probably playing with fire using that kind of logic.
Click to expand...
She did flip Urban/Rural Rs- those formerly GOP-leaning counties are actually where all our best pickups are in '18.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-09/the-democrats-new-base-romney-voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/...t-for-house-control-is-following-the-sun.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hulu to add ads to their ad free tier
32
2K
MayauMiao replied
Study: Using AI reduces Cognitive Activity
2
56
522
kpopSuperstar replied
iPadOS 26 turns your iPad into a Mac (almost)
2
65
1K
RetroGamingUK replied
Carl's Jr. Free Hangover Burger Ad
36
2K
mopspear replied
Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ will be the first blockbuster shot ENTIRELY on IMAX cameras
25
709
jason10mm replied
Top Bottom