third party voters exist in every election and amounted to 5% of the vote last year. complaining about jill stein voters is ridiculously myopic when the obvious problem is a few obama voters who went for trump and lots more who stayed home.
-
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
third party voters exist in every election and amounted to 5% of the vote last year. complaining about jill stein voters is ridiculously myopic when the obvious problem is a few obama voters who went for trump and lots more who stayed home.
"I'm With Her" was meant to emphasize the importance of the first woman president, but the whole appeal really seemed selfish. The sentiment offered nothing to her supporters. And broadly speaking, it failed. Young women mostly voted against her in the primary and white women mostly voted against her in the general election.
"Stronger Together" was a pretty cool counter to Trump's bigotry and divisiveness, but it came too late to change anybody's mind. Because Hillary Clinton lost so narrowly, it's possible that adopting this unifying message earlier could have won her the presidency. Who knows.
Frank the Great
Banned
I understand exactly why people vote third party. They are children who think doing something that has "symbolic meaning" is more important than enacting positive incremental social change. And they are too ignorant of history and politics to know that it doesn't even have any "symbolic meaning" to anyone but their entitled selves.
It doesn't stop the underlying behavior from being irrational.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
That kids watching trump ad apparently focus tested extremely well, and I still think it's a great persuasion ad. It's just the balance really was completely off. Make 50% of the ads be Donald saying terrible stuff and Hillary talking about her history of helping people, and the other 50% things like that job plan ad and this wouldn't be an issue.
Mike Udall's Colorado senate run in 2014 is another example of this sort of thing. He didn't make a mistake putting focus on Gardner's most vulnerable spot of his abortion policies, but he did make a mistake not balancing out those attacks with other non-abortion stuff.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
Killer Mike was a fucking idiot for voting stein. That doesn't denigrate his right to vote that way.
(but his vote was ridic)
As an aside, a big fuck you to anyone that says that Bernie isn't doing anything with this. When he's literally calling for nation wide voter registration every chance he gets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS6ofuyz8BQ
The only time my kids saw Trump say those things was during Hillarys ad which they were constantly exposed to. It was as bad and misguided as the grammatical hilarity of Love Trump's Hate
thecouncil
Banned
Yeah, evidently, people really did love Trump's hate. Oh well.
Frank the Great
Banned
I'm not complaining about or blaming third party voters. I just pointed out the simple observation that their voting behavior is irrational in a two party system. I understand that we are always going to have ignorant voters, and that it is not solely their fault that Hillary, but that doesn't excuse their ignorance. That's all I'm saying.
I made it quite clear earlier that I think Hilary fucked up the campaign and that's why she lost.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
I just realized, I can't remember a hillary ad that wasn't about trump.
He did with their campaign what he did with the press early on.
Yeah, that was one of her problems, but with Trump it was really hard to ignore all the low-hanging fruit he put out for attack ads compared to... any candidate in the history of television and a lot of her ads became about how bad Trump is.
It also didn't help that every poll showed that people saw Hillary as better on the economy and policy but didn't actually find her personable or trustworthy, so Hillary had to focus on gaining trust in ads about herself. That left little room for policy there, but she did go over policy constantly on the campaign trail.
Yes, I'm sure that in a world without the leaks she wouldn't have gained the .5% of the vote she needed to win.
Pretty much, he was damn good bait.
It also didn't help that every poll showed that people saw Hillary as better on the economy and policy but didn't actually find her personable or trustworthy, so Hillary had to focus on gaining trust in ads about herself. That left little room for policy there, but she did go over policy constantly on the campaign trail.
Yes, I'm sure that in a world without the leaks she wouldn't have gained the .5% of the vote she needed to win.
Mr.Shrugglesツ;231824382 said:
Pretty much, he was damn good bait.
Every third-party vote is the result of a deficiency in the two dominant parties. It is an embarrassment of the Clinton campaign that 1.4 million people thought wifi lady was better choice than Hillary.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
We had this ad run a lot in colorado:Mr.Shrugglesツ;231824382 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNLwH8AEa7Q
I never liked it, but she did win Colorado.
I doubt most of that 1.4 million people even knew that WiFi lady was even wifi lady. Or even could name her policy positions.
PdotMichael
Banned
Obama was dealing with another level of bullshit.
The content of the emails were trivial and only had some effect on her because she was a weak candidate.
The content of the emails were trivial and only had some effect on her because she was a weak candidate.
Frank the Great
Banned
I feel like a broken record here. I'm not absolving Hillary's campaign. She fucked up.
But it's also OK to point out that all those Stein voters made an irrational choice. That is also an embarrassing display of ignorance by the voters, and there is no excuse. Could Hilary have done better to motivate them? Sure. But that doesn't excuse irrational protest voting.
There's plenty of blame to go around. At the end of the day if we had a more educated and civically responsible society, Hillary would have had no need to convince those moron Stein voters that maybe they shouldn't help Trump get elected. But we don't have that society, and it was Hillary's job to persuade those morons. She failed.
I am a huge critic of the american tribalism politics, but come on, let's not pretend it's not standard of many other countries too, it sure it's like that here in mexico and we usually have 4 parties [with actual shots to win] gunning for presidency.
Political participation and political power relies on people being able to express their political views collectively through a political party. Institutionalized Political power is exerted then, through the voting process. The political power of the Green Party is that if Democrats want those votes, they need to coalesce with the Greens. It doesn't matter if Democrats are the closest since they are just not close enough, and despite the possibility of Republicans winning, it should have an impact on the Democrats next platform.
Removing all of the political power of the population is exactly what the Republicans and Democrats want. It allows for a Narcissism of Minor Differences to dominate the political language. One has to align to one or the other party based on an offer produced through a vacuum.
It's also appropriate to recognize that all major political triumphs were produced through movement outside the center of power. Abolitionists, suffragettes, civil' rights, labour rights. "Power never concedes without a demand, never has and never will". Chomsky would put it as a manufactured consent for the two party system.
PdotMichael
Banned
It's quite the opposite in a parliamentary system like in Germany. Parties which aren't capable of reaching consensuses with other parties are rendered pointless, it's a complete different political culture than in the USA.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Shit I knew her ads sucked but I never realized how little they contained about policy. Like the rest of the GAF echo chamber I just assumed everyone knew it like I did.
Its not enough to say your opponent sucks, people expect you to say that. You have to tells us why you're better.
Its not enough to say your opponent sucks, people expect you to say that. You have to tells us why you're better.
Calm waterfall
Banned
The problem is that there are almost no left wing politicians in the US. There are right wingers and centrists, and that is disturbing. Hilary and her ilk are centrists at best, and some regards she is a right wing. The Republicans have no problem catering to their own constituents by speaking about republican ideas, while democrats, for the most part ignore the left wing and take on centrist policies to try to cater to as many as possible. First the idiot democrats should cater to their own constituents before going immediately to the center. Of course that means you should have a populist leftist candidate instead of the same politicians and the same policies.
Trump did not win the election, Hilary lost it. Also the aftermath of the election is embarrassing. Instead of the democrats look into themselves, do some reflection over the results, and come up with a strategy to improve their chances in the future, the democrats started to call people racist, ignorants, blah blah, as if that will bring them more votes. There need to be more ideologues on the left political spectrum. If nothing else, Bernie forced Hilary´s policy more to the left instead of being centrist. It´s quite sad that there is almost no real left in the US.
Hilary was the worst candidate that just talked some slogans and mottos instead of actually engaging more with people instead spending all the time fund raising and taking care of corporate interests.
Trump did not win the election, Hilary lost it. Also the aftermath of the election is embarrassing. Instead of the democrats look into themselves, do some reflection over the results, and come up with a strategy to improve their chances in the future, the democrats started to call people racist, ignorants, blah blah, as if that will bring them more votes. There need to be more ideologues on the left political spectrum. If nothing else, Bernie forced Hilary´s policy more to the left instead of being centrist. It´s quite sad that there is almost no real left in the US.
Hilary was the worst candidate that just talked some slogans and mottos instead of actually engaging more with people instead spending all the time fund raising and taking care of corporate interests.
What the fuck are you taking about? I voted for Sanders and then very unenthusiasticly voted Clinton. I never liked her, I still don't like her, I think she ran a shitty campaign, the election never should have been that close, and I have a ton of problems with third way/mainstream democrats.
But the Russia stuff is not fucking "conspiracy mongering." There is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence and human intelligence from actual spy agencies that show Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, is a compromised FSB asset. He colluded with a rival foreign power to steal information from his political rivals for use in the campaign. He's aligned US foreign policy with Russian interests in exchange for financial gain. The amount of evidence supporting this is staggering. There's so much smoke in the room I can't breathe, and at this point only a goddamn idiot or someone with an agenda could deny that there's anything there if you're paying attention. I don't think anything will happen to Trump as long as republicans hold congress, because they wouldn't impeach him even if there was video of him raping a minor, but this is potentially the biggest scandal in US history.
This is about more than finding a scapegoat for Clinton's loss (She should have won fairly easy anyway if she had actually ran a good campaign). This is about the current president serving the interests of a hostile nation, and it absolutely needs to be pursued. I mean, democrats should absolutely be reflecting on Clinton's loss and pushing back hard on Republican policy, but we can't just fucking ignore that the president may very well have committed treason/espionage/other crimes.
Like, I cannot understand why some people on the left continue to downplay Trump's connections to Russia as if it's nothing and shouldn't even be looked into.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Hill-gaf still haven't stopped dog piling on people for pointing out stuff like this.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
This is bullshit.
Almost every democrat in congress are "left wing".
The issue you seem to be addressing has a huge fault. Most of congress doesn't actually answer to their constituents.
The fake grassroots movement created to co op the republican party wasn't a constituent movement. Literally paid for by interests*
The above money is what made the racist(I make no bones about calling it that) happen in rural states. You think those 20 and 30 k rallies happened randomly and because MAGA? You're an idiot.
Blaming Stein, Sanders, and the far left feels much nicer to Clinton supporters than other types of introspection.
If only those 6,492 anarchists in the country had seen the real difference between Democrats and Republicans!
Frank the Great
Banned
WTF are you talking about. I'm not against third parties in the abstract. Obviously in a parliamentary system it's rational to vote how you want because people form coalitions.
But our political system is built to always produce two parties. Always. Nothing will ever chance that unless the Constitution is rewritten. Until that happens, voting third party in America is an irrational waste of a vote.
By the way, you mentioned civil rights and slavery and suffragettes. Third parties had nothing to do with those. Those causes were advanced when the more progressive party in the two party system had total control. Green party voters prevent that from happening by helping guys like Bush and Trump. It is irrational.
And once again, I'm not blaming third parties for Hillary's loss. Almost all voters are irrational, it's up to the campaign to appeal to them. And she failed. But that doesn't absolve Green party voters from their part in helping Trump and Bush get elected! Everyone deserves blame for this travesty.
I'm tired of blaming the voters for everything. Sure, there's a certain section of the country that are deplorables. But, they are called deplorable for a reason. They are a lost cause. Meaning that there's nothing we can do about them. So, rather than complaining and blaming things on things we have no control over, why not focus on the things we do/did?
Focus on why we didn't get more enthusiasm for people to show up and vote for Clinton. Focus on what went wrong or what should've been done differently. This thread is exactly what we need. Sure, perhaps there are other things to also criticize, but the topic is specifically about the campaign. Don't try to damage control any time someone tries to let out some criticism. Accept it and discuss the other stuff when it comes up.
What's irritating is when the conversion goes:
A: "Hillary's campaign was a mess."
B: "But the voters are the real problem!!!!"
Focus on why we didn't get more enthusiasm for people to show up and vote for Clinton. Focus on what went wrong or what should've been done differently. This thread is exactly what we need. Sure, perhaps there are other things to also criticize, but the topic is specifically about the campaign. Don't try to damage control any time someone tries to let out some criticism. Accept it and discuss the other stuff when it comes up.
What's irritating is when the conversion goes:
A: "Hillary's campaign was a mess."
B: "But the voters are the real problem!!!!"
EatinOlives
Member
Lol if you think the reports on Russia are manufactured to justify Clinton's defeat. That's easily the stupidest talking point brought up in this thread.
Calm waterfall
Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;231825862 said:
Lol ok. Most democrats in congress are centrist. Even Obama is centrist.
The idiot here is the one who does not learn from this experience and blame others for their failures, ie you and everyone who blame others for losing the elections instead of Hilary and her idiot campaign mangers.
I'm with her was stupid, from a marketing standpoint. It allowed for too many counter slogans and mockery. i.e. "I'm with stupid", She wants you to be with her but "I'm with you"
Did she really use "Love Trump's hate" as an slogan?
How that even makes sense? at least say "love what trump hate" or something
btw, as a south american, I think that is cute to see people thinking than the majority of democrats are from the left, the only one that I see from that tendency is sanders. For me the difference between a democrat and a republican is that the first is from the right and the second is the ultra right
How that even makes sense? at least say "love what trump hate" or something
btw, as a south american, I think that is cute to see people thinking than the majority of democrats are from the left, the only one that I see from that tendency is sanders. For me the difference between a democrat and a republican is that the first is from the right and the second is the ultra right
Barry Burton
Member
Yeah, this checks out and I think it backfired as well.
At least here in Pittsburgh, over the last few weeks of the campaign nearly all of her TV and print ads were all anti-Trump, focusing on the terrible things he said. And it just seemed counterproductive to keep hammering on that, as by that point, everyone knew what a piece of shit he is and they've made up their minds on whether that's a deal breaker to them or not. Whereas Trump's TV spots towards the end of the campaign were largely pro-Trump and not anti-Clinton.
I didn't think PA would flip red like it did, but in hindsight, I can kinda see how it happened.
At least here in Pittsburgh, over the last few weeks of the campaign nearly all of her TV and print ads were all anti-Trump, focusing on the terrible things he said. And it just seemed counterproductive to keep hammering on that, as by that point, everyone knew what a piece of shit he is and they've made up their minds on whether that's a deal breaker to them or not. Whereas Trump's TV spots towards the end of the campaign were largely pro-Trump and not anti-Clinton.
I didn't think PA would flip red like it did, but in hindsight, I can kinda see how it happened.
AcademicSaucer
Member
It was supposed to be some kinda love conquers all thing and the point was to show love in the face of hate. It was a dumb slogan.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
Fuck outta here. This is the problem with purists.
You can't realized there's a difference between ideology and governance.
Obama governed as a centrist to try and get shit done.
His ideals are far from centrist.
e: you can literally read his words of hear them.
Why's there an apostrophe?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The point wasn't that you have to cover your kid's ears when trump is on TV. The point is that by having donald trump be president, or supporting him politically, you are implicitly telling your children that it's ok or even good to act like that.
Mr.Shrugglesツ;231826702 said:
congress didn't twist his arm to make him adopt an extremely aggressive foreign policy, that's just been the democratic party consensus since clinton. or how about economics? secretary geithner formulated a monstrous policy of propping up the banks at the expense of homeowners which led to record numbers of foreclosures. these are things obama had direct control over and were far from left-wing ideals.
Because the hate is Trump's and the love is what you're supposed to meet it with. Again, it was a dumb marketing slogan.
El_Tiguere
Member
When 70% of the country wants a new better direction by November 2016, you don't run a "Same Direction, but NOT Trump" campaign. You articulate and fight for that new direction, which is what Bernie did, and why the group most desperate for a new direction (those under 45) supported him versus Hillary including in the primaries.
By attacking Trump personally as your only shtick, reverse psychology kicks in and riles up his base, the Democrat base goes "yeah.. I know", and people on the fence go "meh... but at least it's a change from the current mediocre state of affairs". I still think Hillary defenders have a hard time acknowledging that things ARE mediocre for so many people out there, and ignore the fact that Corporate Democrats have been either on the driver seat of that mediocrity, or in the condoning passenger seat for the last 40 years.
For the ardent defenders of the current power-holders of the Democrat party, what vision of America are they desperately trying to cling on, versus what Bernie Progressive Democrats want? Is it a vision that further entrenches the divide between the interest of the wealthy donors, versus those of the bottom classes? From their actions in the last 40 years, anyone can form this conclusion. Can anyone give me valid counter-arguments to Bernie/Progressive platforms that doesn't involve right-wing "ZOMG Socialist!" BS? Why are Corporate Democrats trying to placate his platform at every turn, if it is not because they go against the interest of the wealthy donors and corporations in power?
Is it just "incremental progress" for the sake of being incremental? What if the majority of Americans NEED solutions NOW (and needed them in Nov 2016)? Will the incremental progress (that they barely saw under 8 years of Obama) appeal to those people? What has incrementalism and compromise gotten Democrats so far? more extreme levels of income/wealth inequality and corporate abuse of power? I'm open to hearing other versions of reality in which the Democrats in power have not pandered to the wealthy through their actions. They will continue to pay the price as long as that perception exists, and as long as the divide between the wealthy top 10% and the bottom 90% gets wider and wider. They will pay the price because government has been correctly identified as a primary factor for that gap widening.
People can harp all they want on how dumb and inhumane it is to vote for Trump. If you part from the basis of the educational makeup of our society (60% don't have a college degree), you have to walk people through your vision of the future, and how it is better than what it is today. Saying "we are good! they are bad!" is empty when people are increasingly anxious about their lives and future.
I would recommend everyone read this Shawn King article. It is key to take back the country from Trump and Republicans:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659
They ignore them because their donors don't want them to touch these issues. I was being facetious about the whole "incrementalism" thing. The Corporate Democrat version of slow progress is to appease their donors first, with a few token legislative acts of "progress" here and there. That no longer worked by 2016.
By attacking Trump personally as your only shtick, reverse psychology kicks in and riles up his base, the Democrat base goes "yeah.. I know", and people on the fence go "meh... but at least it's a change from the current mediocre state of affairs". I still think Hillary defenders have a hard time acknowledging that things ARE mediocre for so many people out there, and ignore the fact that Corporate Democrats have been either on the driver seat of that mediocrity, or in the condoning passenger seat for the last 40 years.
For the ardent defenders of the current power-holders of the Democrat party, what vision of America are they desperately trying to cling on, versus what Bernie Progressive Democrats want? Is it a vision that further entrenches the divide between the interest of the wealthy donors, versus those of the bottom classes? From their actions in the last 40 years, anyone can form this conclusion. Can anyone give me valid counter-arguments to Bernie/Progressive platforms that doesn't involve right-wing "ZOMG Socialist!" BS? Why are Corporate Democrats trying to placate his platform at every turn, if it is not because they go against the interest of the wealthy donors and corporations in power?
Is it just "incremental progress" for the sake of being incremental? What if the majority of Americans NEED solutions NOW (and needed them in Nov 2016)? Will the incremental progress (that they barely saw under 8 years of Obama) appeal to those people? What has incrementalism and compromise gotten Democrats so far? more extreme levels of income/wealth inequality and corporate abuse of power? I'm open to hearing other versions of reality in which the Democrats in power have not pandered to the wealthy through their actions. They will continue to pay the price as long as that perception exists, and as long as the divide between the wealthy top 10% and the bottom 90% gets wider and wider. They will pay the price because government has been correctly identified as a primary factor for that gap widening.
People can harp all they want on how dumb and inhumane it is to vote for Trump. If you part from the basis of the educational makeup of our society (60% don't have a college degree), you have to walk people through your vision of the future, and how it is better than what it is today. Saying "we are good! they are bad!" is empty when people are increasingly anxious about their lives and future.
I would recommend everyone read this Shawn King article. It is key to take back the country from Trump and Republicans:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659
They ignore them because their donors don't want them to touch these issues. I was being facetious about the whole "incrementalism" thing. The Corporate Democrat version of slow progress is to appease their donors first, with a few token legislative acts of "progress" here and there. That no longer worked by 2016.
El_Tiguere
Member
Sorry double post.
God Dayumm
Banned
Attacking and belittling the opponent can be an effective strategy. Trump did it effectively since the primaries and won. It's just that Hillary's attacks were underwhelming and not very convincing. She attacked the voter base instead of Trump with her "deplorables" comment. And then I saw no mention from her campaign of how Trump is an unsuccessful businessman that would tank the economy and waste taxes on dumb shit.
Shamrock7r
Member
I thought he explained pretty clearly the importance of not forcing people to vote in a 2 party system.
The godawful Clinton camp is the worst thing to happen to the USofA in my lifetime - dicked Gore (setting back green energy for decades), they are BFF's with the Bushes and voted for Iraq War 2.0, and they (especially Hillary) didn't work hard or smart vs Trump thus handing Republicans nearly unprecedented control for the foreseeable future. They corrupted a party to the point where everyone was all-in on a candidate with alltime deplorable ratings and the FBI on her tail....goddamn charlatans
We've never seen a more stupid or lazy campaign than what Hillary led. Too much spent on internet ads, not enough traditional advertising, and the ones that did make it on air missed the mark. Couple that with nearly no presence compared to Obama or even Trump on the trail and that's disaster waiting to happen.
We've never seen a more stupid or lazy campaign than what Hillary led. Too much spent on internet ads, not enough traditional advertising, and the ones that did make it on air missed the mark. Couple that with nearly no presence compared to Obama or even Trump on the trail and that's disaster waiting to happen.
Calm waterfall
Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;231826702 said:
There is a difference between purists and leftists. Obama had plenty of centrist policies, like the drones program etc... You don´t seem to know the difference. When Obama was elected the democrats had control over both houses, yet Obama started suggesting laws from an already compromised position. Let me teach you something about negotiations, you always start negotiating from a place that you know you can´t get until you "compromise" and still get everything you want.
Hilary Clinton was a centrist at best and hawk with regards to foreign policy. Plenty of people got turned of by that, especially since she is so cozy with Wall Street. I won´t blame leftist for not voting for her because policies were not left wing policies. Bernie getting into the election forced the Clinton camp into getting more to the left, which is why more leftists need to get into presidential races.
Nah, just the white folk and others who decided to actually vote trump are responsible for trump.
Also, There are already systems in place to introducing a major 3rd party, it's called getting 5% of the national vote.
tearsintherain
Member
While many hate Tucker Carlson, he recently gave a speech at a fire fighters conference and talked about the 18 months he spent on the campaign trail with the candidates and why he thinks Trump won. While Hillary made a ton of strategic mis steps, I think ultimately she had no chance of winning in an election year where you had one candidate who loudly was saying "burn the whole thing down" and the other candidate was basically saying "everything is fine!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2dct9ErA_g
The economy is great where I am, closer to the coastline, but its definitely not so good in the Midwest and that gap has widened dramatically in the last 10 years. Its an unspoken secret that the last 6 years has seen the greatest wealth generation in America in history, but almost ALL of that wealth has gone to the rich, almost all of it has occurred in just a few areas of the country, and the middle class is shrinking and the scary thing is that the shrink is accelerating. Hillary is part of that establishment political world (both dems and repubs) that has benefited immensely from free trade but has never once been honest about how its not great for everyone.
It is ironic that Bernie was the other one who was honest to everyone about it, and I think that would have been a much closer race (at an electoral level) than people think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2dct9ErA_g
The economy is great where I am, closer to the coastline, but its definitely not so good in the Midwest and that gap has widened dramatically in the last 10 years. Its an unspoken secret that the last 6 years has seen the greatest wealth generation in America in history, but almost ALL of that wealth has gone to the rich, almost all of it has occurred in just a few areas of the country, and the middle class is shrinking and the scary thing is that the shrink is accelerating. Hillary is part of that establishment political world (both dems and repubs) that has benefited immensely from free trade but has never once been honest about how its not great for everyone.
It is ironic that Bernie was the other one who was honest to everyone about it, and I think that would have been a much closer race (at an electoral level) than people think.
I think this attitude is the reason the Dems are absolutely terrible at winning. This isn't the mindset to win anything ever. If you want a better outcome you focus on what you can actually affect, you don't dwell on what you have no control over. I mean just think for a second here, instead of learning anything to apply to the future from this, all you're doing is saying people are bad. That may be true, but it's hardly useful.
Honestly I'm increasingly not sure that a lot of really partisans are too concerned with winning over making voting a morality play.
Dems would do well to take a page from Machiavelli and operate in the reality they live in and not the one they desire
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
This isn't true, many of the progressive reforms came from the demands of the Populists and the Progressives because the major parties had to co-opt their ideas to survive. The Republican party literally came into existence because abolitionists found both parties insufficiently abolitionist.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
(non-US view: )
So, you guys are already ignoring the fact that she had to make ads on herself thanks to a two-decade smear campaign? And that every policy thing would be drowned in 'but her emails' shit?
If you're going to blame someone, you should point it at irresponsible 'news' and other media. Like Jon Stewart hobby suggestion at CNN: "I suggest journalism".
I doubt the campaign people felt they had much choice considering what they were up against. I do believe her campaign was overly confident in thinking that people read and would look up her policies on her website (see first debate).
But the fact that between Mercers, Murdochs, and the Putin club, the campaign had to compete with billions spent by non-campaign sources, versus millions of theirs (oh, and I completely forgot about Jill Stein there too), there was really no such thing here as an honest, business-as-usual campaign to be had.
Discussing strategy is pointless when the game is rigged by default. Or at least, I don't see them as valuable to analysis considering they're mostly a response to the playing field, not active moves. The only thing that we can really take from it is the embarrassing mismatch between 'she got this' that we felt and the campaign, in hindsight, mostly playing defense (possibly out of necessity). The DNC hack just made everything that much worse when you have a nation willing to spend billion (not millions, billions) on running interference. You can't honestly compare these campaigns to previous ones as if they're the same.
So, you guys are already ignoring the fact that she had to make ads on herself thanks to a two-decade smear campaign? And that every policy thing would be drowned in 'but her emails' shit?
If you're going to blame someone, you should point it at irresponsible 'news' and other media. Like Jon Stewart hobby suggestion at CNN: "I suggest journalism".
I doubt the campaign people felt they had much choice considering what they were up against. I do believe her campaign was overly confident in thinking that people read and would look up her policies on her website (see first debate).
But the fact that between Mercers, Murdochs, and the Putin club, the campaign had to compete with billions spent by non-campaign sources, versus millions of theirs (oh, and I completely forgot about Jill Stein there too), there was really no such thing here as an honest, business-as-usual campaign to be had.
Discussing strategy is pointless when the game is rigged by default. Or at least, I don't see them as valuable to analysis considering they're mostly a response to the playing field, not active moves. The only thing that we can really take from it is the embarrassing mismatch between 'she got this' that we felt and the campaign, in hindsight, mostly playing defense (possibly out of necessity). The DNC hack just made everything that much worse when you have a nation willing to spend billion (not millions, billions) on running interference. You can't honestly compare these campaigns to previous ones as if they're the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked