|
Bip Roberts posted:She lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote by a decent margin and Republicans already had both floors of congress. God drat it I erased my prev post by mistake Hillary lost 1/3rd of the rust belt counties that voted twice for Obama. She was so bad that Trump managed to pull a higher % of minorities than Romney. Trump managed to do that. TRUMP. That's how bad iron abuela was
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her campaign was NOT excellent. It was bordering on incompetent. Not true. The fundraising was unprecedented, the ground game was excellent and the ad campaign was insanely well played outside of that dumbass abuela ad. It didn't end up mattering but it was excellently run based on everything we knew about campaigning It just turns out that when outsider influence and a racist buffoon can conjure up enough anger you're pretty much hosed. Doesn't help if you've been demonized for 30ish years
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I genuinely don't believe it's above ten percent. Is there a good comprehensive resource on this? It shocked the hell out of me too, but since my partner started working for a literacy organization, I've been bombarded with statistics and figures almost every afternoon. The last big survey I looked at was done in 2003. Nationally back then, about 14% were rated at Below Basic literacy skills (possesses no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills), and 29% had basic literacy (perform can perform simple and everyday literacy activities). In my state, it was 19%. 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." Further, this study showed that 41% to 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale (literacy rate of 35 or below) were living in poverty. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp http://web.archive.org/web/20060208011709/http://www.air.org/publications/documents/SAAL_NY_web.pdf According to my partner's org, the figures are now about 20%. 21% of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19% of high school graduates can’t read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
In New Orleans on Tchoupitoulas street "Heil Drumpf" "American=idiot" and swastikas were painted on a fence. That was painted over during the day and replaced with this.  Historically, New Orleans has been one of the more Jewish friendly cities in the South.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:What were the misteps? They ran a Wall Street stooge that has no idea how to talk to regular people beyond spouting policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There is a concept called "toxx" on this board which means that people who post in a certain thread agree to be banned if their favoured candidate loses. I suspect this had some impact. The ones I'm talking about didn't toxx, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Most people who live in red states are pretty hosed if they never change anything. A huge amount of the policies we need have to happen at the state level and if people don't change their state governments then those lovely governments will resist attempts to impose progress from above and have the legal power to do it. Yep, it's a lovely, desperate situation to be in. Kind of makes you wonder why so many people were mad that Bernie was edged out. This election seemed like it was a choice between voting for the status quo or for lighting a giant bomb in the political system. Can't blame many people for not voting and trying to get back to their lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Actually, if we are going to go on a basis of recognition, Trump got everyone talking about things in terms of him, and Hilary focused her whole campaign in relation to him. He had the name recognition. Honestly, if Bernie had been the nominee, him talking about what he wants to do and all that probably would have been more effective than all the talking about trump in the world. Bad news spreads fast, but good news is what sticks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Not true. The fundraising was unprecedented, the ground game was excellent and the ad campaign was insanely well played outside of that dumbass abuela ad. It didn't end up mattering but it was excellently run based on everything we knew about campaigning Yeah bro that ground game was SO GOOD Look just how much iron abuela cares about minorities! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Doesn't help if you've been demonized for 30ish years Or forget to campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania when your opponent's surrogates are literally on every channel for weeks saying their only hope is through those 3 states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Not true. The fundraising was unprecedented, the ground game was excellent and the ad campaign was insanely well played outside of that dumbass abuela ad. It didn't end up mattering but it was excellently run based on everything we knew about campaigning I live in the heart of the Rust Belt and the only Clinton ads I saw were the ones where they painted Trump as an idiot/meanie. Turns out no one gave a poo poo when you didn't tell them what you were gonna do for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Only 538 dissented and said it was pretty close, which was true. And boy did they get poo poo on for this! I heard here that they were fudging the numbers to get ad clicks from the gullible. I admit I was doing that too, but again when everyone is saying one thing and one person is saying something on the outside edge of probability it seems like an outlier you can safely ignore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So then why didn't she beat Trump? I probably sound like I'm being a smart aleck, but I honestly think More people knew about her than Trump. As it is, Did anyone know about Barack Obama outside of his constituency before he became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? If Bernie got as far as he did without name recognition, just how well would he have done with another year to get his name out, alongside the well known Democratic party name? I don't think anyone's claiming that name recognition is a silver bullet, though. It's a major factor, and made a big difference in the primary, but it can be partially offset by things like really charismatic candidates, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There is a concept called "toxx" on this board which means that people who post in a certain thread agree to be banned if their favoured candidate loses. I suspect this had some impact. nah tb for example just stopped posting here
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Not true. The fundraising was unprecedented, the ground game was excellent and the ad campaign was insanely well played outside of that dumbass abuela ad. It didn't end up mattering but it was excellently run based on everything we knew about campaigning No it was not. The messaging and electoral strategy was a complete mess. They spend 8 months trying to target "moderate" republicans and white women who all voted for Trump anyway while giving Paul Ryan and the republicans a complete pass that was disastrous down ticket. They failed in every way it is possible to fail. No one on that campaign's leadership team should ever work in democratic politics again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This already happens naturally because the minimum wage is a price floor and it pushes everything up. I'll admit that was a throwaway comment and not a serious proposal, but the difference is the minimum wage only sets a soft floor. If you make $12/hour and the min wage increases from $10 to $12, there's less than a 50% chance you'll see a raise to compensate. If all wages were indexed as a multiplier of minimum wage, however, it would be an automatic increase for all folks up the chain. Minimum wage goes up by 20%? So does your pay. That way you reduce the animosity and resistance of those saying, 'I already make $15 an hour and my wages certainly won't go up, why should burger flippers get more?' Essentially, you make the benefits of increased minimum wage tangible to all participants in the market economy, and get folks interested in the plight of the poors (even if through cynical self-interested reasons). You can negotiate for raises by either increasing your multiplier, or raising the wage floor. If you're sufficiently socialist enough, maybe you even set a ceiling for the multiplier before an absurd tax rate kicks in. Although I'm not sure why I'm elaborating much on this. I'm sure there are wide open holes that can be blown in this idea. For one thing it assumes the marginal added value of every job remains stable, even if the job itself becomes less important. It's hardly something I thought about with any degree of rigour, just something I've toyed with in my head. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Glazier posted:I admit I was doing that too, but again when everyone is saying one thing and one person is saying something on the outside edge of probability it seems like an outlier you can safely ignore. It's hard to be Cassandra. Everyone hates you, even if you are right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No it was not. The messaging and electoral strategy was a complete mess. They spend 8 months trying to target "moderate" republicans and white women who all voted for Trump anyway while giving Paul Ryan a complete pass that was disastrous down ticket. They failed in every way it is possible to fail. No one on that campaign's leadership team should ever work in democratic politics again. They failed in some key regards, but it's pretty dumb to say that they failed in every regard, when that's clearly not true. If the campaign machinery had existed around a better candidate, it would have been a blowout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Didn't Hillary's campaign bus also dump their poo poo in some random neighborhood? Lmao. Amazing optics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the hillary campaign severely neglected "safe" blue rustbelt states, that is a legit criticism Weren't there some numbers posted here showing that she ran like 10x as many ads in California as Pennsylvania? It was a garbage campaign. It looked good to her supporters, but it was a complete mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Her campaign was great in every respect the typical Democrat strategist could have expected it to be. One of the biggest problems is, fair or not, people did not especially like/get excited about Hilary Clinton. People were not passionate (in general) about Hilary. They ran a campaign not getting people excited about Hilary, but contrasting against Trump and how bad he is. During the campaign this seemed like the best route. Conventional wisdom indicated this would be the best route.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They failed in some key regards, but it's pretty dumb to say that they failed in every regard, when that's clearly not true. If the campaign machinery had existed around a better candidate, it would have been a blowout. Managing the candidate is part of running a campaign, another thing they utterly and completely failed at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Weren't there some numbers posted here showing that she ran like 10x as many ads in California as Pennsylvania? It was a garbage campaign. It looked good to her supporters, but it was a complete mess. Trump's campaign was also a mess. Probably more of a mess. He didn't figure out his team until nearly the end. But the voters liked him better and that's what counts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anyone's claiming that name recognition is a silver bullet, though. It's a major factor, and made a big difference in the primary, but it can be partially offset by things like really charismatic candidates, etc. It seems to me like name recognition has more of an advantage early on, since whoever becomes the nominee presumably gets some attention. Also, I just had a thought: did Donald Trump talk more about the issues than Hilary did? He talked about immigration (walls), Trade (something something nafta bad), foreign policy (nuke em), the economy (I do the negotiation thing). It seems like, as bad as they were, Donald brought up what people vote GOP for. All Hillary did was talk about trump. If anything, it seems like we failed because we DIDN'T focus on the issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
trash person posted:One of the biggest problems is, fair or not, people did not especially like/get excited about Hilary Clinton. People were not passionate (in general) about Hilary. They ran a campaign not getting people excited about Hilary, but contrasting against Trump and how bad he is. During the campaign this seemed like the best route. Conventional wisdom indicated this would be the best route. imo one of the biggest problems is that democrats try to avoid completely political dishonesty when making campaign promises, republicans largely do, and trump was just freewheeling across the landscape promising puppies and unicorns and pots of gold to anyone who would vote for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Trump's campaign was also a mess. Probably more of a mess. He didn't figure out his team until nearly the end. But the voters liked him better and that's what counts. Yeah no one's saying Trump's campaign was good. It was horrendous. But he had way more support from his base, which he constantly threw red meat to. Clinton steadfastly refused to do that and represented something many of them hate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/798249519628558336 Remember when Trump was running against the neocons in the campaign?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:imo one of the biggest problems is that democrats try to avoid completely political dishonesty when making campaign promises, republicans largely do, and trump was just freewheeling across the landscape promising puppies and unicorns and pots of gold to anyone who would vote for him Though, to be fair, that's already burning him a bit. People are already going "how is the swamp drained?" or "you lied about the coal mines, con man." And, gently caress, he isn't even inaugurated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So then why didn't she beat Trump? I probably sound like I'm being a smart aleck, but I honestly think More people knew about her than Trump. As it is, Did anyone know about Barack Obama outside of his constituency before he became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? If Bernie got as far as he did without name recognition, just how well would he have done with another year to get his name out, alongside the well known Democratic party name? Majorian posted:I don't think anyone's claiming that name recognition is a silver bullet, though. It's a major factor, and made a big difference in the primary, but it can be partially offset by things like really charismatic candidates, etc. Trump had strong name recognition too, ran on bullshit and fairy dust, and they decided Clinton wasn't the better candidate. Charisma matters, too. Obama was charismatic enough to beat Hillary's structural advantage. Bernie wasn't. We can't rely on charisma as a factor though.  My Linux Rig posted:Yep, it's a lovely, desperate situation to be in. Kind of makes you wonder why so many people were mad that Bernie was edged out. It's never been that I don't comprehend why they've done what they've done. I just think they're fools, and that you're a jerk for knowing exactly why there were fools and acting like it's going to be grand and wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Honestly it just makes sense. Of course we aren't going to get exactly what we want, we have lived our entire lives with that happening again and again, but you still have an easier time hitting something if you aim for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Managing the candidate is part of running a campaign, another thing they utterly and completely failed at. They managed her pretty well overall, the last couple weeks of not visiting vulnerable states notwithstanding. The biggest problem was that Hillary Clinton was the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/798249519628558336 The Lannisters send their regards!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Honestly it just makes sense. Of course we aren't going to get exactly what we want, we have lived our entire lives with that happening again and again, but you still have an easier time hitting something if you aim for it. What?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Why is it impossible? If The Democratic Party was actually for working people, why aren't they in the streets with Fight For $15? I'm very curious as to what people who think Democrats are in it for the working man would think Hillary's platform would look like if Bernie didn't run and scare the poo poo out her in the Rust belt. IIRC literally every minimum wage hike passed but Trump still won. Kind of gives some insight as to how the working man feels about the self described working man's party
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
If anyone honestly expected Trump to not hire/largely fall in like with the rank-and-file GOP then I'm more ok with him winning so his voting base can get a big wake up call in how politics works. It would be an understatement to say that I do not understand the thought process held by Trump voters, but I cannot even begin to fathom how they thought voting for Trump, and also voting for the standard GOP down ballot candidates, would lead to the 'drain the swamp' rhetoric happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:It seems to me like name recognition has more of an advantage early on, since whoever becomes the nominee presumably gets some attention. Also, I just had a thought: did Donald Trump talk more about the issues than Hilary did? He talked about immigration (walls), Trade (something something nafta bad), foreign policy (nuke em), the economy (I do the negotiation thing). It seems like, as bad as they were, Donald brought up what people vote GOP for. All Hillary did was talk about trump. Hillary made speeches on issues and traveled around campaigning but the Clinton campaign utterly failed to control the narrative. They didn't have surrogates often enough on the news and they didn't come up with ways to force the media to pay attention to them. They thought the media constantly looking at Trump would make everyone see his awfulness for what it was, but instead they just thought she wasn't even running. The number of times the media would cut to a stream of Trump's empty podium or whatever while covering Hillary is hilarious and they needed to fight for the media's attention and control their narrative way, way better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Clinton was a flawed but incredibly qualified candidate who ran a great traditional campaign with fatal blind spots against an idiot with billions in free airtime to make empty promises that people were desperate to hear. LOL if you think Bernie would have won in her stead, but he may have at least flipped the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Covok posted:Though, to be fair, that's already burning him a bit. People are already going "how is the swamp drained?" or "you lied about the coal mines, con man." And, gently caress, he isn't even inaugurated. it's not really going to burn him, he already got what he wanted. confidence tricksters dont give a gently caress what you think after they've gotten what they want out of you. this is why it's important to spot liars before they take advantage of you, not realizing it after you're wallets drained and they've left town trash person posted:If anyone honestly expected Trump to not hire/largely fall in like with the rank-and-file GOP then I'm more ok with him winning so his voting base can get a big wake up call in how politics works. this relies on the pattern recognition and critical thinking skills of people who thought obama was just refusing to flip a switch labeled "bring good jobs back to ohio"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I pretty much agree with this but it was just SO BLATANT this time in combination what a piece of poo poo he is personally that it's shocking that 90% of republicans can just look the other way and pull the lever for the red team. I'm of the opinion that if the apprentice tape of Trump calling a black person a friend of the family had come up he still would've won It would've, I think it was right around the first debate when he just straight up owned up to ripping off his employees cause gently caress em and it didn't do any lasting damage that it sunk in that there really was nothing he could say that'd hurt him. Republicans were willing to overlook Trump saying gently caress them, personally, because the alternatives were Cruz and then Clinton, the odds they were gonna get outraged on behalf of a group they've been historically hostile to was nil. BarbarianElephant posted:I've never seen this attitude in the real world. I can believe that at the absolute top of the party the top nobs might have lost touch, but most of the party is local officials and volunteers not much distant from the struggle. If you ask a "Fight for 15" demonstrator who he voted for, he'd probably say "Clinton" or "Stein" not "Trump" or "Johnson" I have, granted I live in DC where the useless party aristocracy gather like flies but if you've never run into an economic-conservative democrat or a liberal who's just plain hostile to any kind of political action more radical than voting Hillary Clinton generally your social circle is super insular
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
mango sentinel posted:LOL if you think Bernie would have won in her stead, but he may have at least flipped the Senate. clinton ran as one of the most disliked democratic party candidates in thirty years and barely lost to trump, yet somehow sanders wouldn't have done any better,.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
