Support NeoGAF

[Gestahl]

saying that these neglected and poor groups don't want to help themselves sounds like a typical republican talking point to me.

"Poor people just don't want healthcare" - Neogaf 2017

Or was that some shitbird Republican congressman/senator? Can't seem to remember...

 

[ExVicis]

She put her opponents name in her own campaign slogan? LOL.

Sounds like a slogan for trump

Her slogan going into the election was "Love Trumps Hate". It was awful.

Yeah I with you guys on this. During the whole election when "Love Trumps Hate" was just starting I honestly thought it was a weird satirization of the Alt-Right that was literally saying "I really love how Trump hates Immigrants" or stuff like that.

Had no idea it had anything to do with Hillary until after a while of seeing pro Hillary supporters it and meaning it in some kind of encouraging way.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Polls had her winning easily, hindsight is always 20/15

 

[BlisterBrown]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659

Huge grassroots movements, made up of millions and millions of people, are fueling the fight for a $15 minimum wage, fighting back against fossil fuels and the Dakota Access Pipeline, fighting to end fracking, fighting to remove lobbyist money from politics, fighting to end senseless wars and international violence, fighting for universal healthcare, fighting for the legalization of marijuana, fighting for free college tuition, fighting against systems of mass incarceration, and so much more. But mainstream Democrats aren’t really a central part of any of those battles, and, to be clear, each of those issues have deep networks, energized volunteers, and serious donors, but corporate Democrats virtually ignore them.

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.

I never realized it, but it's crazy to think that Hilary's campaign championed NONE of those issues listed. I mean sure, maybe one or two of them were listed on her website, but none of those issues were discussed seriously during her campaign.

 

[.JayZii]

Policy in its most raw, distilled and dumbed down form

"I like America."

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

did the russians hack her campaign to make it dumber

 

[Bladenic]

So Kellyanne was right all that time, she wasn't spinning when she said the exact same thing on interviews. Damn

 

[shamanick]

"Poor people just don't want healthcare" - Neogaf 2017

Or was that some shitbird Republican congressman/senator? Can't seem to remember...

People will twist and contort to ridiculous positions in order to avoid taking any kind of blame or ownership over 2016

 

[Steel]

"Poor people just don't want healthcare" - Neogaf 2017

Or was that some shitbird Republican congressman/senator? Can't seem to remember...

This is basically saying that the statement that "Voting for Trump in 2016 is voting against your own interest" is the same as "Poor people don't want Healthcare, so we should take it away."

But, sure, let's allow the false equivalencies to continue. Critical thinking is hard.

 

[Henchmen21]

Polls had her winning easily, hindsight is always 20/15

No they didn't. Her numbers were always within MOE.

 

[Zolo]

No they didn't. Her numbers were always within MOE.

They were, but the way they were reported and talked about made the perception seem like that.

 

[Neoweee]

Polls had her winning easily, hindsight is always 20/15

Polls didn't have her winning easily. She had a lead, but with a large number of undecideds and, on-paper, fundamentals favoring Trump. Late-deciders broken strongly in favor of Trump on the back of the media meltdown over the email nothing-burger, along with probable/possible voter suppression and demoralization effects working against her, as well.

 

[phanphare]

Polls had her winning easily, hindsight is always 20/15

there were plenty of concerns using foresight as well

 

[Justin Bailey]

Honestly, Hillary probably lost for the same reason Mitt Romney did - both seemed out of touch with the average American and neither had a coherent, simplified campaign marketing strategy.

 

[Carnby]

"I'm with her" was so, so awful.

I didn't even know that was her campaign slogan until after the election.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How to Job to Donald Trump: The Campaign

Hillary Faction will continue to blame everyone except Hillary though.

But emails
But Benghazi
But Comey
But Russia
But WikiLeaks

What about BUT THE CAMPAIGN WAS TERRIBLE AND NO ONE LIKED THE CANDIDATE

 

[wildfire]

are you telling me that Hillary may have lost because her campaign was fucking awful?
nah... I'm sure it was because of those evil Russians, that makes way more sense.

Spoiler

/s

It was both. It's obvious that Clinton had a terrible strategy that caused her to lose to a candidate she should've beaten.


Thought it is less obvious that the Democratic leadership will try to change the narrative that Russia's interference is the problem we should only focus on.

 

[God Dayumm]

I didn't even know that was her campaign slogan until after the election.

I thought that slogan was made by her fanboys. She can't be this narcissistic

 

[Conciliator]

best thing hillary & co. had going for them was that they weren't Trump. made sense to go all in on it at the time, I guess.

 

[Prof. Bathtub]

Weird that so little media coverage was focused on the specific policies of either candidate. If their speeches and ads didn't cover them, questions might have been helpful. But no, Emails! and "Who's He Attacking This Week?"

 

[Rentahamster]

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

IIRC, he doesn't live in a swing state, so it wouldn't matter.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

The usual retort was, "Why don't you read her policies?!!" which illustrates the basic disconnect with voting Americans. Americans don't read.

Unfortunate but true. Clinton's campaigning tactics truly were terrible.

 

[Rentahamster]

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.

Not necessarily. Protest votes are a thing. Voting your conscience is a thing. non-swing states are a thing.

Also,

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1314375

 

[Gallbaro]

Unfortunate but true. Clinton's campaigning tactics truly were terrible.

You can go to her website!

 

[perfectchaos007]

I thought that slogan was made by her fanboys. She can't be this narcissistic

It was. Her official slogan was "YAAAAAS QUEEN!"

 

[pretty done]

I remember people telling me:

"What's the problem?! If voters want to know her policy, it's all on her website. Surely they can go and find out."

I imagine those people probably use the phrase 'yazzzzz kween' at least five times per day.

 

[Zolo]

IIRC, he doesn't live in a swing state, so it wouldn't matter.

Eh. If we're going to hold people who do this in swing states accountable, then we can't just go to people in states that are solid in one area that it's fine if they don't vote or whatever because the state's obviously going to go one way.

 

[Makonero]

Dems would do well to take a page from Machiavelli and operate in the reality they live in and not the one they desire

I mean look at the people saying voting for a third party is irrational.

Guess what! People are irrational!

Maybe we should factor that in and use strategies that work.

 

[CopperPuppy]

this is the main bit to focus on. the ads did their job elsewhere, but they didn't bother running any until it was too late in these states.

I tend to agree with this. The devil is really in the details when the outcome boils down to county-by-county margins as small as the likes we had in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And, ultimately, that bit you quoted is the detail that matters. There was a complete strategic failure when it came to those states. Trump's campaign coalesced in time to see the opening and seize on it, and here we are today.

I also agree that her campaign's general lack of direction and inability to really nail down a message beyond her contrast with Trump and the historic significance of her prevailing likely put her in a position to lose by those small margins.

It's a bit like the difference between blaming the kicker for blowing a game versus blaming the entire team for putting the kicker in the position to blow it. This analogy crumbles a bit when you take into account the difficulty of measuring the impact of a campaign's general theme on votes (as opposed to the direct and obvious impact of a football team's performance on the score), but you get the picture.

 

[SpecX]

Running on I'm With Her would be like Obama running on something as on the nose as Bet on Black

The sad thing though is Obama probably would have still won using a slogan like that. I never liked the "I'm with her" slogan since it didn't mean anything more to me except voting in the first female president. Obama's "Hope and Change" made me feel empowered as if everything I hoped for was about to become a reality and this man will make these changes. I think Trump got it right with MAGA since it drives a feeling of patriotism and aligned with his bs.

 

[Brakke]

Pretty hard to care about this. It's not like Clinton was unserious on policy. Her website was chock full of policy and papers. It was trivial to get real information about her substantive positions. This thing where we demand politicians "inspire" us or provide tv spot-length distillations of wildly complicated issues is crazy. Take some responsibility for getting yourself informed, and hold people you know accountable on getting themselves informed.

 

[Rentahamster]

Eh. If we're going to hold people who do this in swing states accountable, then we can't just go to people in states that are solid in one area that it's fine if they don't vote or whatever because the state's obviously going to go one way.

It will go one way, though.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Pretty hard to care about this. It's not like Clinton was unserious on policy. Her website was chock full of policy and papers. It was trivial to get real information about her substantive positions. This thing where we demand politicians "inspire" us or provide tv spot-length distillations of wildly complicated issues is crazy. Take some responsibility for getting yourself informed, and hold people you know accountable on getting themselves informed.

People don't have time to read detailed policy proposals they aren't qualified to understand. People just want to know where you stand on an issue: no one needs to know the wonky details of a plan because a tiny number of people can accurately evaluate those. It's the candidate's job to provide a vision of the future in their presidency.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Pretty hard to care about this. It's not like Clinton was unserious on policy. Her website was chock full of policy and papers. It was trivial to get real information about her substantive positions. This thing where we demand politicians "inspire" us or provide tv spot-length distillations of wildly complicated issues is crazy. Take some responsibility for getting yourself informed, and hold people you know accountable on getting themselves informed.

If you can't distill your message down into something that's easily digestible in a slogan and campaign ads, then you're fucked. Obama managed to do it and Trump did as well. Hillary's campaign failed miserably at it. You can sit and blame the voters or try to do much better next time in terms of picking a candidate.

 

[ExVicis]

Pretty hard to care about this. It's not like Clinton was unserious on policy. Her website was chock full of policy and papers. It was trivial to get real information about her substantive positions. This thing where we demand politicians "inspire" us or provide tv spot-length distillations of wildly complicated issues is crazy. Take some responsibility for getting yourself informed, and hold people you know accountable on getting themselves informed.

I don't know. A candidate that makes your work to figure out if you like them or not them sounds like a risky move. It sounds a lot like waiting for someone to find out you're a great person to date on their own.

 

[The Shadow]

How to Job to Donald Trump: The Campaign

Hillary Faction will continue to blame everyone except Hillary though.

But emails
But Benghazi
But Comey
But Russia
But WikiLeaks

What about BUT THE CAMPAIGN WAS TERRIBLE AND NO ONE LIKED THE CANDIDATE

Sexism and misogyny.

Any excuse but Hillary

 

[Rentahamster]

Polls had her winning easily, hindsight is always 20/15

Hindsight is 20/20

You should have asked me last year

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=224160933#post224160933

 

[Oemenia]

Pride comes before the fall....

What's weird is that we case studies of Presidents winning and it's based on a strong narrative:

http://www.quantifiedcommunications.com/blog/storytelling-in-politics

https://vimeo.com/155823636

Hope and Change

Make America Great Again

I'm With Her seems to feed into the desires of an egomaniac and didn't really convey what are you're going to do for me.

She did have a cult worshipping her after all.

 

[D4Danger]

You should have asked me last year

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=224160933#post224160933

yeah you don't need hindsight to see it wasn't the slam dunk everyone thought (although it really did feel closer than most years just because of how truly awful Trump is).

I mean you could put a broom handle on the republican ticket and still get 45% of the vote but instead of trying to win that slim majority you had people convinced Texas would go blue. Plenty of people tried to voice their concerns but the bubble was impenetrable.

 

[Brakke]

People don't have time to read detailed policy proposals they aren't qualified to understand. People just want to know where you stand on an issue: no one needs to know the wonky details of a plan because a tiny number of people can accurately evaluate those. It's the candidate's job to provide a vision of the future in their presidency.

The website is still up. There are literally bullet points. If you can't make the time to read a couple dozen bullet points once every four years, then what are we even doing having a democracy at all.

 

[Brakke]

Guys I just wish our politicians would have more catchphrases and empty platitudes. That's what we need.

 

[elrechazado]

Guys I just wish our politicians would have more catchphrases and empty platitudes. That's what we need.

Tippecanoe and Tyler too

 

[ExVicis]

The website is still up. There are literally bullet points. If you can't make the time to read a couple dozen bullet points once every four years, then what are we even doing having a democracy at all.

I thought we had a democracy because we as a people find it to be the most free version of a government we have currently developed. Not because people like the idea of searching on a website for bullet points.

Again, asking people to go to the website sounds like telling someone during a date to go read up about you on Facebook and decide for themselves because you don't feel like saying anything about yourself to them.

The infrastructure was already there for her to have her website content relayed via television and so was the money. All the campaign had to do was "do it". How could making her platforms more visible and available to anyone and everyone have hurt?

Tippecanoe and Tyler too

Yep. This kind of thing has existed for years, I really don't understand all the sarcasm and bitterness over this now. Simple messages and simple ideas always win over complex ones. Always.

Hell look at the slogan that Eisenhower's famous for. "I like Ike!"

 

[Rentahamster]

Guys I just wish our politicians would have more catchphrases and empty platitudes. That's what we need.

I wish our politicians would have a more science-based and research-tested approach to understanding how humans think and using that knowledge to communicate effectively.

 

[D4Danger]

Guys I just wish our politicians would have more catchphrases and empty platitudes. That's what we need.

it works.

 

[Jeels]

Why did Hillary even hire that Mook guy? Did he have some track record of success?

 

[Dash_Riprock]

it works.

Obama had both a substantive policy AND simple and easy to digest talking points and catchphrases.

Hillary had NO excuse. Especially when much of her campaign staff had worked for Obama...

 

[SolidSnakex]

it works.

The good news for whoever is the 2020 nominee is that at the rate we're going they can literally recycle Obama's 08 campaign.

 

[jWILL253]

I'm trying to parse this (and the thread overall) to see which portion of this information justifies White people across both party lines, between three or four states, voting Trump into office.

Say what you want about the content of the ads, but literally every other demographic of people who voted were on the same page. We got the message, negative ads and all.

What's your excuse?

 

[Carnby]

The website is still up. There are literally bullet points. If you can't make the time to read a couple dozen bullet points once every four years, then what are we even doing having a democracy at all.

Number of times I've been on Hilary's shitty website: zero.