Cringe at those "mi abuela" post.
-
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
Cringe at those "mi abuela" post.
yanipheonu
Member
Hillary: Grasping Failure from the Grips of Success
This further solidifies the notion that Hillary didn't actually stand for anything. This vague feeling everyone had that she expected to win based on being a Clinton or simply being of better character than the opponent, but not because of anything she stands for. Turns out that vague feeling can actually be corroborated in the messaging. No policy, just being better than that other guy.
hydrophilic attack
Member
she had some of the best and most detailed policies that any us politician has run on
really sad that she didn't try to sell them
really sad that she didn't try to sell them
Vicetrailia
Banned
Obama's forward was forgettable but he still sold it.
I'm with her is a mistake for sure, and it's hard to sell it with her unfair baggage. And as already said she should have campaigned more.
Feels like the slogan isn't that important compared to the other pitfalls.
I'm with her is a mistake for sure, and it's hard to sell it with her unfair baggage. And as already said she should have campaigned more.
Feels like the slogan isn't that important compared to the other pitfalls.
Lol she really just didn't want to piss off Obama with that one. One of the few times in recent history a candidate really embraced the outgoing administration and thus couldn't talk shit about how they fucked up.
Basically.
The people in charge of her campaign were idiots, clearly.
Trump's cheeks were spread wide and they still fucking lost. Not to mention the total incompetence that DWS, the interim chairwoman, and the DNC itself brought into the election.
Father_Brain
Banned
And to be fair, that strategy was a *partial* success, as Clinton did better than Obama in many affluent, heavily white urban/suburban areas (see: Orange County, etc.). It's just that those gains either weren't in battleground states, or were outweighed by losses from non-college whites, POC, and millennials.
what? no. I can't believe it
Living in Texas literally every ad I saw was an attack ad on Trump~
Ohio too. Too be fair, I really thought that the ad with the kids in front of the TV seeing all the things Donald said was a good one. Definitely could have used more policy ads though.
I actually thought that all the ads were good for me. But I'm fairly liberal so I clearly wasn't the target audience.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Maybe it will be a complete success next time?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I know it's trying to use the same sort of inspiration that the FedEx logo has, but it also happens to look like directions to where the nearest hospital is.
The sooner you stop crying and playing the victim the sooner everyone can move on
"Why is she talking about him instead of what she wants to do?"
"Just go to hillaryclinton.com."
...
"Why isn't she being more aggressive in this debate? He just gave her plenty she can work with!"
"When they go low, you go high!"
...
"Why hasn't she visited these states?"
"Is she sure that chuckling in disbelief whenever he says something stupid doesn't make her look arrogant? I know she's right, but not everyone watching knows that Trump is lying."
"What are you, a Trump defender? A Bernie or Bust-er? Go away!"
This last one gets to me because I distinctly remember a moment in one debate where she just smiled and went "that's not how it works", and left it at that. Explain how it works, then! A lot of Americans in reality know nothing about politics except for the buzzwords that are important to them. That's why Trump ran on catchy phrases and Bernie made sure you knew what he stood for by reciting his stump speech at every single appearance.
"Just go to hillaryclinton.com."
...
"Why isn't she being more aggressive in this debate? He just gave her plenty she can work with!"
"When they go low, you go high!"
...
"Why hasn't she visited these states?"
"Is she sure that chuckling in disbelief whenever he says something stupid doesn't make her look arrogant? I know she's right, but not everyone watching knows that Trump is lying."
"What are you, a Trump defender? A Bernie or Bust-er? Go away!"
This last one gets to me because I distinctly remember a moment in one debate where she just smiled and went "that's not how it works", and left it at that. Explain how it works, then! A lot of Americans in reality know nothing about politics except for the buzzwords that are important to them. That's why Trump ran on catchy phrases and Bernie made sure you knew what he stood for by reciting his stump speech at every single appearance.
2020 needs a 50 state strategy though to make gains in Congress. It's going to have to be a lot more tailored to each region.
old manatee
Banned
Angelus Errare
Banned
When it comes to appealing to the masses, never assume anything is implied. It's all about tone and relatability. "She's With Me" directly tells people that Hillary is working for them, whereas "I'm With Her" doesn't imply anything about what she's doing for you.
I was joking.
Sunster
Member
FedEx looks professional. The Hillary logo looks like a middle schooler's been having fun on microsoft paint for 10 minutes.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
To be fair though, in Western literature, we usually read from left to right, so in that sense it conveys forward progress.
gutter_trash
Banned
voters today who still don't know that Republican policies are evil and who continue to vote Republican anyway deserve no sympathy
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Clinton didn't have a turnout problem overall, she had a turnout problem in specific states. In specific states where Trump's message of racist protectionism resonated. I don't know how you beat that. If he loses next time its only going to be because of the disastrous effect he has on their material conditions of living, don't fool yourself into thinking its because anyone is going to realize they elected a proto-fascist
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i think it would be wiser to go after the hundred million or so eligible voters that didnt even bother to show up but i dont see that happening.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Another opportunity for Neogaf to defend the worst candidate in modern american history.
They don't give a shit about policy detail, but they want a message backed by a couple of big ideas. Trump was all about building the wall, bringing back blue-collar jobs, and Making America Great Again. Now of course it was all lies and bullshit but he had a message that excited a lot of people. I don't think Hillary ever managed to craft a message that sounded optimistic for working class people or even a decent reaction to Trump's message. She basically said "those jobs aren't coming back", which is true, but that isn't going to help you win.
Hillary's campaign seemed to be based around breaking glass ceilings and how unhinged Trump was, not about people's livelihoods. Globalisation has damaged a lot of people's lives and across the world left-leaning politicians are struggling to retain working class support because of it. Clinton was naive in the extreme if she thought that the anti-globalisation sentiment wasn't boosting Trump, the Brexit vote happened 5 months before the election and was a warning she didn't heed.
Super_Cobra
Member
She gave Donald trump the election. I hated when she always talked about what she has done throughout her political career.
Her campaign was very bad. The "I'm with her" was horrible. She was more articulate than trump though and by far.
Her campaign was very bad. The "I'm with her" was horrible. She was more articulate than trump though and by far.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Oh, so now Americans cared about policies? I thought it all about feelings?
Most of her ads weren't even contrast ads between them. Just plain negative ones about trump and negative about his character. So it was even more pathetic than that.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I think it would be more prudent to go after the people who have money and power who are supposed to be the ones who gain support from said voters. Blaming voters is currently not a good strategy.
I feel like attacking Trump is a sound strategy given how terrible he is, but it probably didn't work as well for her because she was so generally disliked as well. She needed to do a better job selling herself and trying to convince people she wasn't as bad as others made her seem.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It was about feelings, and Trump used policy to steer feelings in his direction by giving people something to stand for. This is in contrast to Clinton going all in on the strategy of representing Trump as something to stand against, while not being effective enough on giving people something to stand for too.
It works if the majority of people feel that he is actually that terrible. This is not the current reality of people's perception, however. In other words, try and experience it from the point of view of a voter who doesn't already think Trump is terrible, and the tone sounds very different.
Just focusing on attacking Trump also isn't a sound strategy when it doesn't differentiates from the corporate media coverage that ran Trump 24/7.
And on the emotion point, it's why people argueing that Clinton represented economic policies because they voted for her based on "the economy" as opposed to trump's "immigration" is completely missing the point. Immigration was an overarching campaign message that was closely tied to his economic message, it's an active plan, whereas the economy is a nebulous term even if it comes from a more educated voter that understands neoliberal policies.
Zero spending in Michigan and Wisconsin until they realized "oh wait a sec, we're screwed".
It's hard for the "racist protectionism" to not resonate when it's literally the only message circulating.
And on the emotion point, it's why people argueing that Clinton represented economic policies because they voted for her based on "the economy" as opposed to trump's "immigration" is completely missing the point. Immigration was an overarching campaign message that was closely tied to his economic message, it's an active plan, whereas the economy is a nebulous term even if it comes from a more educated voter that understands neoliberal policies.
Look at the third graph. Actually I'll just repost it.
Zero spending in Michigan and Wisconsin until they realized "oh wait a sec, we're screwed".
It's hard for the "racist protectionism" to not resonate when it's literally the only message circulating.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
The fact that people needed a reason not to vote for someone unqualified for the job sounds like the real core of the issue.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Did i say anything about blaming voters? im saying that nearly half the electorate that didnt bother to even show up is right there just waiting for a reason to vote. 2018 and 2020 should be a bloodbath for Republicans but from how things are going right now i doubt that.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Delicate problem, people want policies explained to a certain degree but they want it "dumbed down" for lack of a better word.
Hillary's tendency to get too nuanced and detailed when explaining policies is a turn off to many people because they feel she's talking down to them, add in the perceived lack of charisma she suffers from and boom.
And honestly, you also gotta lie/promise voters things you know won't come to pass.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It seemed like that was the implication since you were responding to a post about Trump voters who deserve no sympathy, but if you were talking about voter outreach, then yes, that is correct.
elrechazado
Banned
But but platform. But but website.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
She didn't have this tendency. Her tendency, quite clearly pointed out in the original material, was that she didn't tend to explain policies at all, never mind getting detailed.
The "I am with her" was only really used doing the primaries for the general election it was "Stronger together" with still sucked but was better. As for the ads I agree the negative ads were good during the summer but after fall hit they lost there effectiveness and they should of switched to strictly positive ads.
There's no such thing as perceived lack of charisma. If people perceive you as uncharismatic that's because you are.
Got any proof on that? Because I feel the majority of Americans do feel Trump is terrible. I think in early November, a lot of voters in the Midwest thought Clinton was a shitty person too, and given her bad messaging and other problems, that is what ultimately did her in. I don't think her campaign realized how generally disliked she was.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Look at the third graph. Actually I'll just repost it.
Zero spending in Michigan and Wisconsin until they realized "oh wait a sec, we're screwed".
It's hard for the "racist protectionism" to not resonate when it's literally the only message circulating.
damn
didn't the campaign have a lot of money
what did they do with it
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
The funny part about this thread is that poligaf ignored it when I posted the paper.
Personally, I felt like Hilary's campaign was less "hey I'll do a lot of good for y'all" and more "hey put ME in the White House!!" I'm not saying that's ACTUALLY show she felt, but the entire fucking primaries centered around "who is better to beat trump," nonverbally implying he was just going to win the whole thing.
Then the fucking election happened and the two of them were two busy (rightfully) bickering that I don't feel like any real, meaningful conversations about policy happened. "Go read about it on my website" does nothing for me
That and "I'm with her" "let's make herstory" and the general attitude that Hilary was just going to win made it seem like she was on cruise control and just assumed the presidency would be a given. Would I rather have her than trump? Oh fucking absolutely yes he's a monster. I just think her campaign could have done a lot differently. Like, didn't they get the questions early from one of the news stations? I figured she'd have some real answers but it was just the same game iirc
Oh well. If the dnc leak is true then this is pretty much their own fault for playing the "pied piper" game with the fucking presidency.
Then the fucking election happened and the two of them were two busy (rightfully) bickering that I don't feel like any real, meaningful conversations about policy happened. "Go read about it on my website" does nothing for me
That and "I'm with her" "let's make herstory" and the general attitude that Hilary was just going to win made it seem like she was on cruise control and just assumed the presidency would be a given. Would I rather have her than trump? Oh fucking absolutely yes he's a monster. I just think her campaign could have done a lot differently. Like, didn't they get the questions early from one of the news stations? I figured she'd have some real answers but it was just the same game iirc
Oh well. If the dnc leak is true then this is pretty much their own fault for playing the "pied piper" game with the fucking presidency.
No such thing as a "perceived lack of charisma". It's not a measurable quantity. If people don't think you have charisma, you don't have charisma.
Agreed with the rest of your stuff. She needed clear, simple objectives and should have promised more rainbows. Intellectual voters would have known she was just exaggerating.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked