Support NeoGAF

[cartographer]

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.

Running against an incumbent should be easier. Beating Trump should have been easy in the first place, but look where we are.

Had Hillary won, the GOP would likely be thinking the same thing, and they would probably be correct. They would also have 16 years of Dem on power to blame everything on.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

What good is that if people were unaware?

Campaigns are like a sport. You need to play the game well to win; no one gives a fuck who is better on paper after the fact. Hillary was far better on paper but she got outplayed. Dems need to learn from this and do better in the next campaign.

I can agree with that.

But to imply that she didn't actually stand for anything and her ads were evidence of such is something I do not agree with.

Her stances on the issues were pretty solid and driven by evidence and consideration about the ability to implement her policies.

She stood for a lot. Social progress, green energy, greater representation for marginalized groups, new jobs, healthcare reform, women's rights, etc.

 

[King Tubby]

Part of this strategy was probably borne of insecurity due to her lack of charisma and likability as a candidate. If you focus on how shitty the other guy is, your lady doesn't have to put herself out there. Reinforcing more why she shouldn't have been the nominee in the first place.

 

[Barajas_201]

Bernie supporters vindicated. PoliGAF reputation is forever tainted.

 

[ExVicis]

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?

There was a post earlier in the thread that offered a pretty good reason.

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.

The bolded is pretty much why.

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

Or imagine if someone didn't have internet. Hillary's website can't explain anything, regardless of how nice it looks.

And yes some people don't have internet in this country. I think the fact that people said "Just go to her wesbite to learn about her, she doesn't need to run TV ads" is proof of the disconnect itself.

 

[entremet]

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

Again. Ideals versus Reality.

Only one will win you elections.

 

[jWILL253]

I can agree with that.

But to imply that she didn't actually stand for anything and her ads were evidence of such is something I do not agree with.

Her stances on the issues were pretty solid and driven by evidence and consideration about the ability to implement her policies.

She stood for a lot. Social progress, green energy, greater representation for marginalized groups, new jobs, healthcare reform, women's rights, etc.

Agreed. The problem is people like this:

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

If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

The bolded is pretty much why.

That fails to explain why the ads only affected the White demographic in those states, as I'm fairly certain the other demos had their shit together.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

So basically, she and the rest of the Democrats were living in a fantasy world?

 

[guek]

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

 

[elrechazado]

Agreed. The problem is people like this:



If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

What percentage of voters in the US do you think go to a website to read policy statements? Every presidential candidate in history is and has been held accountable personally for their delivery of their message to the electorate. Why are you acting like Hillary is exempt because you like her policies and she has a website?

 

[King Tubby]

If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

Then she is an idiot. She's been in politics for decades. The electorate is ignorant, largely apathetic, and easily swayed by rumor, perception, and emotion.

 

[ExVicis]

Agreed. The problem is people like this:



If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

So for people too poor or old to have or understand the internet it's their fault that they didn't know Hillary's views that were just out of reach to them?

Fuck them I guess, they should have known those things they possibly had no way to find out. Especially when Hillary didn't bother to go out to their area of the country anyways.


Edit: Yes I know this isn't the specific case for everyone but honestly are you going to say everyone has the ability to sit down and parse through Hillary's website to figure out what she wants to do? Some people have multiple jobs, obligations, etc. etc. that can keep them away from the computer but near a television.

And again yes Trump is a horrible human being and even without Internet some people may have heard that. But for some voters who don't know any better they think it doesn't matter as long as the policies work and he says he has them every time he talks while Hillary doesn't say anything about hers.

 

[Fisty]

Should have been Bernie. I knew Hillary was a mistake, but I voted for her in hopes that SOMEBODY had to beat Trump.

Never again, Dems!!!

 

[Carnby]

If babies are gonna baby unless you hold them, feed them & burp them, then it's gonna be hard to sell them on anything unless you pander directly to that kind of behavior. If Hillary is guilty of anything, it's that she failed to lower herself to that kind of behavior this go-round. She clearly expected people to be logical, and actually be considerate of who and what they are voting for. But that didn't happen, obviously.

Heh. Funny how this back fired on ya.

 

[MIMIC]

Wow. Didn't think the policy gap would be that wide. But Trump was so big of a dummy that you really can't blame someone for saying, "Don't vote for this dummy." But Hillary was a co-villain in this election, so maybe "policy, policy, policy" was the way to go.

 

[Earthbound64]

don't forget "america is already great"

Seriously, that was a terrible message.
Who would that even target, except maybe "The 1%™"?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Running against an incumbent should be easier. Beating Trump should have been easy in the first place, but look where we are.

Had Hillary won, the GOP would likely be thinking the same thing, and they would probably be correct. They would also have 16 years of Dem on power to blame everything on.

In all seriousness, if I were thinking about running in 2020 I would be thinking of a message similar to Obama's. Given how much Trump has already beaten the country down, something inspiring and uplifting would go over rather well. Of course the candidate also has to be able to carry that message. You can't have someone like Tim Kaine (I know right after the election there was some talk of Dem leaders wanting him) trying to push it.

 

[madstarr12]

The ads worked in VA, NV, NH and CO, they didn't in MI, WI, OH and PA. Her campaign needed different campaign messages for different parts of the country. "Help immigrants" and "Muslims are our friends" aren't good talking points for predominantly white states when you have the opposition putting out protectionist and nationalist messages that resonate. Her slogan "Stronger Together" only worked in states with large minority populations. Her messaging clearly worked in some parts of the country, not in the Midwest unfortunately.

Whoever runs in 2020, learn to have message that can resonate in different parts of the country. If it's another Hillary-esque candidate, a better message could do wonders.

 

[jWILL253]

What percentage of voters in the US do you think go to a website to read policy statements? Every presidential candidate in history is and has been held accountable personally for their delivery of their message to the electorate. Why are you acting like Hillary is exempt because you like her policies and she has a website?

So for people too poor or old to have or understand the internet it's their fault that they didn't know Hillary's views that were just out of reach to them?

Fuck them I guess, they should have known those things they possibly had no way to find out. Especially when Hillary didn't bother to go out to their area of the country anyways.

So, the user I quoted was too poor or too old to get off NeoGAF for a second to look at Hillary's website?

That's the point I was making. If the base you're trying to market towards is going to act petulant like that, even when they have the means to be more informed, then the only way you reach out to those people is if you attract them with populist statements and vague platitudes.

Again, Hillary should've realized that, but not every politician is gonna be Barack Obama and be capable of stealing your significant other at any moment. Voters, especially White voters on both sides, are gonna have to start taking responsibility.

The ads worked in VA, NV, NH and CO, they didn't in MI, WI, OH and PA. Her campaign needed different campaign messages for different parts of the country. "Help immigrants" and "Muslims are our friends" aren't good talking points for predominantly white states when you have the opposition putting out protectionist and nationalist messages that resonate. Her slogan "Stronger Together" only worked in states with large minority populations. Her messaging clearly worked in some parts of the country, not in the Midwest unfortunately.

Whoever runs in 2020, learn to have message that can resonate in different parts of the country. If it's another Hillary-esque candidate, a better message could do wonders.

This is honestly a great view on it. Maybe a polarized populace needs varied messaging. The only problem I could see is the lack of a uniform message when it comes down to it.

 

[Rentahamster]

The notion being argued by some posters that voters should of course be expected to look at a candidate's website to figure out everything about them is funny considering that there's still a large portion of the population that is old and not good with computers.

But, hey, you know young people? The demographic that is familiar with computers and might actually be more likely to utilize them to find about about a candidate? Gee, whom do they like more?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...zing-dominance-among-young-voters-in-1-chart/

Oh. Whoops.

 

[ExVicis]

So, the user I quoted was too poor or too old to get off NeoGAF for a second to look at Hillary's website?

Maybe he didn't need to or maybe he is being a petulant child, but I know there's tons of people in Western Pennslyvania who either are working all day or are in an area where there isn't even a Cell Phone signal.

And some may even have the attitude that Neogaf poster had but as far as their concerned Hillary didn't even want to visit them so why should they bother going out of their way to an free wifi cafe or library to go look up her Campaign website?

 

[Earthbound64]

The ads worked in... NH... Her slogan "Stronger Together" only worked in states with large minority populations. Her messaging clearly worked in some parts of the country

?...

 

[Tain]

The thing is, a lot of Dem supporters put a crazy amount of emphasis on this. Ignoring the fact that if the party doesn't re-shape itself heavily, they could lose again even if Trump and his entire admin get dragged away in cuffs.

The right controls the discourse in the US. They will pivot to blaming liberals and gaslighting the universe as though they never wanted to work with Trump. They even have hundreds of hours of Never Trump sound bites to drag out from the 15 minutes before they kissed the ring.

We can't idly sit by and furiously masturbate to the idea of Trump going down before his four years are up. That's where a lot of the pushback to the Russian focus comes from. People are itching to get something done, not boost the FBI and CIA and hope it goes our way.

Yeah, it's nuts how much of a focus there is on it. It's not that the left thinks there wasn't Russian involvement, it's the hilarious idea that said involvement is the pressing problem right now.

We got Paul Ryan talking like it's an injustice that poor people get to stay alive, something Dems would be wise to shout about from the top of their lungs for the next four years, and here they are grandstanding about Russia instead of even coming to an agreement that all people deserve health care in the first place. There's a desperate thirst to say "we actually played by the rules and were right all along, the system works~" as the poor continue to get ground into paste.

 

[Henchmen21]

The notion being argued by some posters that voters should of course be expected to look at a candidate's website to figure out everything about them is funny considering that there's still a large portion of the population that is old and not good with computers.

But, hey, you know young people? The demographic that is familiar with computers and might actually be more likely to utilize them to find about about a candidate? Gee, whom do they like more?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...zing-dominance-among-young-voters-in-1-chart/

Oh. Whoops.

It's times like these that I wish I had an Alzar from Futurama "Bam" GIF on me.

 

[aeolist]

Yeah, it's nuts how much of a focus there is on it. It's not that the left thinks there wasn't Russian involvement, it's the hilarious idea that said involvement is the pressing problem right now.

We got Paul Ryan talking like it's an injustice that poor people get to stay alive, and Dems would rather shout about Russia than even come to an agreement that all people deserve health care. There's a desperate thirst to say "we actually played by the rules and were right all along, the system works~" as the poor continue to get ground into paste.

also russia was basically just doing what we do anyway, and there are awful countries (israel, saudi arabia) that are way more involved in our elections all the time and nobody seems to care. plus there's legitimate shit we should be working with russia on (arms treaties and syria especially) but nobody can even say that without being called a traitor at this point.

openly antagonizing russia does no one any good.

 

[foxuzamaki]

So the whole front page are people saying her slogan was "I'm with her" but I'm pretty sure her slogan was "stronger together"?

 

[jWILL253]

The notion being argued by some posters that voters should of course be expected to look at a candidate's website to figure out everything about them is funny considering that there's still a large portion of the population that is old and not good with computers.

But, hey, you know young people? The demographic that is familiar with computers and might actually be more likely to utilize them to find about about a candidate? Gee, whom do they like more?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...zing-dominance-among-young-voters-in-1-chart/

Oh. Whoops.

Cool story.

Bernie lost by about 4 million votes, didn't he? And he did so by doing the same thing Clinton did: Not campaigning in key areas (the South). Only difference is he had the populist statements.

To keep bringing up Bernie Sanders after he lost in such a clear, decisive manner just reeks of being a sore loser. Time to move on.

 

[jono51]

So the whole front page are people saying her slogan was "I'm with her" but I'm pretty sure her slogan was "stronger together"?

her campaign, her problem

 

[madstarr12]

?...

Not sure what the problem is. Her ads worked in NH. "Stronger Together" wasn't the reason why she won that state, and her ads weren't all based on that.

The notion being argued by some posters that voters should of course be expected to look at a candidate's website to figure out everything about them is funny considering that there's still a large portion of the population that is old and not good with computers.

But, hey, you know young people? The demographic that is familiar with computers and might actually be more likely to utilize them to find about about a candidate? Gee, whom do they like more?

Some young people were too busy feeling upset about the primary and trying to comfort their emotions. They care more about their emotions than what happens in this country, considering how many of them voted 3rd party or who didn't vote.

But then again, according to data, most Sanders voters did vote for Clinton.

 

[soul creator]

It's amusing how all the "reasonable" and "pragmatic" people are suddenly shocked that voters aren't 100% perfectly rational when it comes to presidential elections!

It also seems like going down the "personal responsibility" road when it comes to mass politics is probably not the best thing for liberals to do, considering how easy it is to turn that around (don't we usually frown on that type of thinking when it comes to any other systemic issue?). A few people here and there not voting, sure, maybe "personal responsibility" applies. Consistently low turnout, millions of non-voters, and the election of Donald Trump? That's a systemic issue.

 

[guek]

Cool story.

Bernie lost by about 4 million votes, didn't he? And he did so by doing the same thing Clinton did: Not campaigning in key areas (the South). Only difference is he had the populist statements.

To keep bringing up Bernie Sanders after he lost in such a clear, decisive manner just reeks of being a sore loser. Time to move on.

I'm a huge Bernie stan but yeah. If we're going to criticize Hillary's campaign, propping up Bernie's isn't the way to do it. Both had problems, many of them the same, many of them very different, and both were ultimately losers.

 

[Rentahamster]

Cool story.

Bernie lost by about 4 million votes, didn't he? And he did so by doing the same thing Clinton did: Not campaigning in key areas (the South). Only difference is he had the populist statements.

To keep bringing up Bernie Sanders after he lost in such a clear, decisive manner just reeks of being a sore loser. Time to move on.

You're missing the point of my argument and constructing a counter argument that is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Some young people were too busy feeling upset about the primary and trying to comfort their emotions. They care more about their emotions than what happens in this country, considering how many of them voted 3rd party or who didn't vote.

But then again, according to data, most Sanders voters did vote for Clinton.

All humans care about their emotions, not just young people. Blame demographics if you want to feel better about yourself, but as a campaign strategy, it doesn't work.

 

[aeolist]

I'm a huge Bernie stan but yeah. If we're going to criticize Hillary's campaign, propping up Bernie's isn't the way to do it. Both had problems, many of them the same, many of them very different, and both were ultimately losers.

i don't think anyone's holding up the sanders campaign as a model in terms of national strategy, more that his policy ideals are important if we want to find a way forward for the democratic party. though it is really impressive how well he managed to do as a party outsider with far smaller donations and basically every democratic power-broker including the president lined up against him to anoint clinton.

 

[guek]

i don't think anyone's holding up the sanders campaign as a model in terms of national strategy, more that his policy ideals are important if we want to find a way forward for the democratic party. though it is really impressive how well he managed to do as a party outsider with far smaller donations and basically every democratic power-broker including the president lined up against him to anoint clinton.

Oh definitely. There are substantial lessons to be learned from the successes of Bernie's campaign. It's just that comparing Hillary and Bernie's campaigns directly isn't all that useful imo.

 

[Earthbound64]

Not sure what the problem is. Her ads worked in NH. "Stronger Together" wasn't the reason why she won that state, and her ads weren't all based on that.

You listed a set of states, claimed her advertising worked in those states, and said that her advertising worked well in states with high ethnic diversity.

Her winning a state is not proof that "her ads worked there," especially when the condition you gave for her ads working was not present in one of the states where you said her ads worked.

 

[Steel]

i don't think anyone's holding up the sanders campaign as a model in terms of national strategy, more that his policy ideals are important if we want to find a way forward for the democratic party. though it is really impressive how well he managed to do as a party outsider with far smaller donations and basically every democratic power-broker including the president lined up against him to anoint clinton.

I'd say Trump breaking the Republican party was more impressive. He pretty much had the whole party lining up to murder him in the primary, while things only got slightly heated in the dem primaries.

That being said, what does his policy ideals have to do with winning an election? Yes, Hillary should've advertised more about the future that her policy solutions would bring about and yes she made some campaign mistakes. But accepting those as facts also means accepting that Hillary didn't lose because of her policy positions but rather her campaign strategy.

And, to be clear, I don't think any one of those things alone are what sunk her campaign. You can't divorce all the other factors that were at play in the election either and very little would have to change in the electorate for the result to be a Hillary win.

If the only negative factor was the wikileaks stuff and she campaigned better? She probably would've won.

If the only factor was her campaign mistakes and the wikileaks stuff didn't drop? She probably would've won.

If she was as charismatic as Michelle Obama with all the other mistakes and outside problems? She would've won easily.

It's harder to pin down what effect her policy positions had on the outcome because the vast, vast majority of the voting base doesn't get anywhere close to looking at the details of candidates plans. I'd go so far as to say it's the least important aspect.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

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?

I'm sure if minority voters had somehow clinched a win for a clearly bigoted simpleton with no political experience or expertise people would be just as willing to absolve them for their it and place 100% of the blame on the opposing candidate'

 

[aeolist]

I'd say Trump breaking the Republican party was more impressive. He pretty much had the whole party lining up to murder him in the primary, while things only got slightly heated in the dem primaries.

That being said, what does his policy ideal have to do with winning an election? Yes, Hillary should've advertised more about the future that her policy solutions would bring about and yes she made some campaign mistakes. But accepting those as facts also means accepting that Hillary didn't lose because of her policy positions but rather her campaign strategy.

And, to be clear, I don't think any one of those things alone are what sunk her campaign. You can't divorce all the other factors that were at play in the election either.

If the only negative factor was the wikileaks stuff and she campaigned better? She probably would've won.

If the only factor was her campaign mistakes and the wikileaks stuff didn't drop? She probably would've won.

If she was as charismatic as Michelle Obama with all the other mistakes and outside problems? She would've won easily.

It's harder to pin down what effect her policy positions had on the outcome because the vast, vast majority of the voting base doesn't get anywhere close to looking at the details of candidates plans. I'd go so far as to say it's the least important aspect.

her unpopularity on the left was entirely due to policy. support for drone strikes and overall hawkishness, fighting back against raising the minimum wage to $15, close ties to wall street, support for oil pipelines, support for trade deals like TPP. fuck, she gave a speech to goldman sachs in which she said politicians should have different sets of political beliefs in private than they espouse publicly.

 

[ExVicis]

It's harder to pin down what effect her policy positions had on the outcome because the vast, vast majority of the voting base doesn't get anywhere close to looking at the details of candidates plans. I'd go so far as to say it's the least important aspect.

Seems pretty hard to say that when Trump was tweeting out every single thought he had or thing he wanted to do and those things got regurgitated by all the news channels. People had a pretty good grasp of at least some part of Trump's plan.

In part the fact that so many people including teenagers seem to have knowledge of at least Trump's wall idea says a lot to me about how far Trump go his messages out there. Meanwhile Hillary is reported to have gone out of her way to not visit some places.

 

[Steel]

Seems pretty hard to say that when Trump was tweeting out every single thought he had or thing he wanted to do and those things got regurgitated by all the news channels. People had a pretty good grasp of at least some part of Trump's plan.

In part the fact that so many people including teenagers seem to have knowledge of at least Trump's wall idea says a lot to me about how far Trump go his messages out there. Meanwhile Hillary is reported to have gone out of her way to not visit some places.

Trump had a plan beyond the wall? I followed every detail of his campaign and it was incoherent 90% of the time. But, hey, if Trump's policy positions are what won him the election, maybe the dems should start talking about building a wall to Canada.

her unpopularity on the left was entirely due to policy. support for drone strikes and overall hawkishness, fighting back against raising the minimum wage to $15, close ties to wall street, support for oil pipelines, support for trade deals like TPP. fuck, she gave a speech to goldman sachs in which she said politicians should have different sets of political beliefs in private than they espouse publicly.

Uh-huh. So, let's say Obama who's held 90% of those positions were to run against Trump. Do you think the outcome would be the same?

If you know that the answer to this is "no" then my point is made pretty clear, policy positions have a lot less weight with the populace than charisma and campaigning skill.

Not to mention that same populace elected someone who said in the primary that the minimum wage was too high.

 

[Henchmen21]

Man that data on the 2000 election showing pretty much no personal attacks vs. what came after is an eye opener.

She couldnt re-adjust and use "I'm With You" because that was Trumps response to "I'm With Her."

I know that this post is from the first page but wanted to reply to it.

Bernie's was even better. "Not Me, Us" is the best slogan ever. It's positive and it makes you feel like he's not a narcissist. But apparently he was the "unelectable" one. Keep failing Hill-gaf.

 

[guek]

Man that data on the 2000 election showing pretty much no personal attacks vs. what came after is an eye opener.

I think you can thank the rise of 24/hr cable news culture for that

 

[Earthbound64]

I think you can thank the rise of 24/hr cable news culture for that

I don't know about the other networks, but CNN (both regular CNN and their CNN Headline News channel) were practically 24/7 Election coverage in 2000.

EDIT: Here's a blast from the past:
http://www.cnn.com/CNNPromos/cnn/election/popup/programs/frameset.exclude.html

 

[cryptosporidium]

My professor made a bet against the class that Trump was gunna win. part of his reasoning was to tell us how trump said policy hillary said nothing essentially. After the election he felt pretty happy he was right but also pretty bad since he's black. But hey we live in Canada so he's doing all right

 

[ExVicis]

Trump had a plan beyond the wall? I followed every detail of his campaign and it was incoherent 90% of the time. But, hey, if Trump's policy positions are what won him the election, maybe the dems should start talking about building a wall to Canada.

If that's the takeaway from this then sure. See how far that gets you.



For us who got pretty saturated on Trump because we were all over the election I can imagine we saw a bunch of blustering, posturing and nonsense. For the uninformed Western Pennslyvania or Ohio votesr who only gets a look at the news in small bites they saw something they could understand, "I want to make immigration tougher"


And as for emails, well it's hard to run on the idea of "This guy is horrible look at him!" when the news is also trying to say you're horrible and look at what you've done too (even if it's over something that trivial). The end result for that ends up being two candidates are being labelled as horrible people but the other side, but one candidate has a policy that's simple and they think is such a good idea that they bring up every time they get to talk and the other candidate has her policy buried in a website.

 

[Steel]

If that's the takeaway from this then sure. See how far that gets you.



For us who got pretty saturated on Trump because we were all over the election I can imagine we saw a bunch of blustering, posturing and nonsense. For the uninformed Western Pennslyvania or Ohio votesr who only gets a look at the news in small bites they saw something they could understand, "I want to make immigration tougher"


And as for emails, well it's hard to run on the idea of "This guy is horrible look at him!" when the news is also trying to say you're horrible and look at what you've done too (even if it's over something that trivial). The end result for that ends up being two candidates are being labelled as horrible people but the other side, but one candidate has a policy that's simple and they think is a good idea that they bring up every time they get to talk and the other candidate has her policy buried in a website.

That's more a difference in campaign style than a condemnation of Hillary's actual policies, though. As I said in the first post in this chain, I think Hillary dropped the ball on messaging. We agree there. I don't think that the nitty gritty of the two's policy proposals mattered to the electorate so much as the presentation did.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

The shit people will defend in Clintons name is astounding.
She lost against fucking Trump and people won't say she was crap.

 

[ExVicis]

That's more a difference in campaign style than a condemnation of Hillary's actual policies, though. As I said in the first post in this chain, I think Hillary dropped the ball on messaging. We agree there. I don't think that the nitty gritty of the two's policy proposals mattered to the electorate so much as the presentation did.

I suppose I agree, I had initially though you meant when you said nitty gritty that you were really saying in general it didn't matter at all what the policy was

In all honesty it takes about two seconds to really look at Trump's policy in detail to know it's stupid. But yeah they phrasing of it between the two is different, because of the campaign style.

I mean if you go by the reports and anecdotes, Hillary seemed to loathe campaigning in general and it seemed she wanted to move quickly through that stuff to the election itself. Meanwhile, Trump is basically still campaigning even though the election has long since passed.

That kind of weird bravado and self-confidence for some reason resonated with folks who didn't look any further to see if there was substance behind it deserving of that confidence. He basically operates like a celebrity, someone who is sure of everything they do and only apologizes when backed into a corner and forced to. Hillary's response should have been to poke holes in all his "great" ideas or to have some sort of counter to that strength of Trump's. Not to sigh, shake your head and go "that's not how this works". She wanted to treat him like a politician and destroy him and his chances at the Presidency like he was one, like he was Howard Dean yelling during the Democratic caucuses, but Trump never operated on that kind of level.

 

[UFO]

Trump had a plan beyond the wall? I followed every detail of his campaign and it was incoherent 90% of the time. But, hey, if Trump's policy positions are what won him the election, maybe the dems should start talking about building a wall to Canada.

If you know that the answer to this is "no" then my point is made pretty clear, policy positions have a lot less weight with the populace than charisma and campaigning skill.

We're talking about the policy positions that people would have been exposed to the most- The news headliners, the national broadcast ads, those types. Not the website stuff, the ABC talkshow news, the debate snipets.

Hillary ran a very negative ad campiagn, Trump ran a negative ad campaign but with simple to understand (and get behind for the struggling middle class) policies.

 

[pretty done]

The shit people will defend in Clintons name is astounding.
She lost against fucking Trump and people won't say she was crap.

They'd rather blame the people that voted for Trump instead of admitting their candidate was shit and blaming her.