|
Bernie was wrong, the American people were not sick and tired of hearing about her drat emails.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Rastor posted:Bernie was wrong, the American people were not sick and tired of hearing about her drat emails. To be fair, the word cloud is what they heard about, not what they wanted to hear about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Someone posted an article earlier in which the author likened Hillary Clinton to a Human Resources Manager. Which is actually an incredibly brilliant comparison, and perhaps single-handedly captures why so many Dems didn't vote for her. Because you see, just like an HR Manager doesn't actually care about the employees and tries to first and foremost protect the company from liability (and is willing to actively gently caress over the employees to achieve that goal), Hillary also didn't really care about her constituents, and at the end of the day was beholden to her corporate donors. Lots of Dems saw through her disguise, which is why nothing she said resonated with them. edit: the same article also pointed out the same thing many posters here are saying: Trump spent the majority of his speeches actually talking about policy ideas and telling stories about him connecting and empathizing with people. The media completely failed to report on this and, much like with Clinton, caught on to a few extremist points and sound-bites. edit 2: found it: http://nonsite.org/editorial/listening-to-trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Addisu Demissie was a veteran of Obama's GOTV efforts and ran the Clinton GOTV operation. Having a hard time believing the GOTV effort was poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:My feeling was that it's not so much about different policies as selling them correctly to the voting public. I would agree with this. They didn't focus enough on Clinton's 30 billion plan to revitalize coal communities. They didn't focus enough on Trump wanting to deregulate Wall Street and clintons plans to strengthen regulations and make it easier to jail bankers. Those are two areas where a lot more messaging about those I think would have made a huge difference. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I mean, Krugman here is correct that changing the policies themselves wouldn't matter (and her policies were actually quite left-leaning for a Democrat). The issue is more the way she chose to communicate those policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Addisu Demissie was a veteran of Obama's GOTV efforts and ran the Clinton GOTV operation. They didn't spend in key states, the states Clinton lost. They spent a lot in Florida, though! Because the DNC is stupid and keeps thinking they'll win Florida, forever. Idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:They didn't spend in key states, the states Clinton lost. They spent a lot in Florida, though! Because the DNC is stupid and keeps thinking they'll win Florida, forever. Idiots. ...Florida was a competitive race and the polling had her winning there. The rust belt weakness wasn't detected until the last two weeks. Don't act like things that are obvious now were obvious then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:...Florida was a competitive race and the polling had her winning there. The rust belt weakness wasn't detected until the last two weeks. To, who, Internet randos who only have professional third-party analysis from guys with teams of polllsters and the Facebook wall of their one redneck uncle to go by? Or the professionals with teams of pollsters whose entire job is to perform that analysis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Someone posted an article earlier in which the author likened Hillary Clinton to a Human Resources Manager. That's not true at all. Clinton had a poo poo load of plans she wanted to enact. And they were specific unlike trump's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:I don't speak even a little German, but I patched this together with the help of Google translate: Altenwerdenwillkürlichkonservativverletzensich HAHA I applaude your effort as well. I am copy pasting that nightmare word into a text file so I can use it later. I'm having trouble logging into my S.A. Account. Obviously I'm logged in, but I can't log in to anything else, to send money etc. P.M. me and I'll paypal you the $5.  You guys are too funny. This is a time when we need funny!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
What percentage of voters do you guys think, just COULD NOT pull the trigger on a woman president? 4%, 5%, 10%? I don't want to get into an entire gender politics discussion, but as a woman, I still think it was just too early to run a woman. WE got the vote (with crappy exceptions on BOTH sides) a full 50 YEARS after black men could vote. Accounting for some social progress and a more liberal citizenship overall, I was still not expecting a woman president in my lifetime. Maybe 2030 something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:What percentage of voters do you guys think, just COULD NOT pull the trigger on a woman president? 4%, 5%, 10%? I don't want to get into an entire gender politics discussion, but as a woman, I still think it was just too early to run a woman. WE got the vote (with crappy exceptions on BOTH sides) a full 50 YEARS after black men could vote. Accounting for some social progress and a more liberal citizenship overall, I was still not expecting a woman president in my lifetime. Maybe 2030 something? I mean, she's winning in the popular vote by over a million at this point. There was an almost comically low voter turnout this year, though, so I'm gonna go with actually at least 10%, probably more including all the people who decided not to vote for anybody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:What percentage of voters do you guys think, just COULD NOT pull the trigger on a woman president? 4%, 5%, 10%? I don't want to get into an entire gender politics discussion, but as a woman, I still think it was just too early to run a woman. WE got the vote (with crappy exceptions on BOTH sides) a full 50 YEARS after black men could vote. Accounting for some social progress and a more liberal citizenship overall, I was still not expecting a woman president in my lifetime. Maybe 2030 something? This is just me speculating so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the people who could not bring themselves to vote for a woman are overwhelmingly likely to be people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat either, so in this case I'd say it's not relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Those are two very conflicting opinions on the matter. What if that 10% that stayed home did it because they knew Trump was a crazy pig, but also could not bring themselves to vote for a girl? I don't feel like that's crazy talk because I have worked in D.C. and there are some very BIZARRELY entrenched sexists running around to this day. There is still a very boys-club nature to a lot of politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
One reason she lost that I haven't heard covered much is because her supporters were reluctant to post on social media. 44% of people get their news from social media. That number goes up significantly higher for younger people. Many Hillary supporters were reluctant to post on social media for fear of getting harassed. Pantsuits Nation has 3 million members, but that was a secret group who just talked amongst each other. Without her followers posting positive Hillary articles, and challenging articles critical of her, people weren't being as exposed to Hillary information favorable to her as happened during Obama's election, or during the primary for Bernie for that matter. During the primary I was getting nervous that so many Hillary supporters were reluctant to post on Facebook, as I knew that could spell trouble during the general election. I hoped though that once the primary was over they would come out into the open. Yet so many continued to remain silent. And that helped doom her campaign. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:To be fair, the word cloud is what they heard about, not what they wanted to hear about. The people will want what the media tells them they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Those are two very conflicting opinions on the matter. What if that 10% that stayed home did it because they knew Trump was a crazy pig, but also could not bring themselves to vote for a girl? I don't feel like that's crazy talk because I have worked in D.C. and there are some very BIZARRELY entrenched sexists running around to this day. There is still a very boys-club nature to a lot of politics. There was a general sense that Hillary Clinton was distasteful even if you remove gender from the picture. I'm someone who voted for her and thinks she would have been a good president (better than Obama even), but I still had this general (mostly* irrational) perception that she's a bad/dishonest person (due to a combination of the way the media has presented her and her own lackluster campaign personality). For people who aren't as introspective, I could easily see them "trusting their gut" on the matter and just assuming she must be bad. * I say "mostly" because the whole "getting paid huge sums of money to give speeches at investment banks" thing was a legitimate issue that I never saw any good excuses for, and for many people it basically cemented Hillary as a candidate that was not aligned with the interests of the poor/working class. While it's not technically bribery, there's also a tacit expectation that you'll at least maintain a positive relationship with the organization in question if you agree to something like that. I don't believe that Clinton was chatting with bankers about how to gently caress over the working class or anything, but I think that many politicians just listen to these people talk and think "wow this person seems really intelligent and reasonable" and genuinely become convinced that they know what is best (and I imagine this is how most lobbying works). Cerebral Bore posted:This is just me speculating so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the people who could not bring themselves to vote for a woman are overwhelmingly likely to be people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat either, so in this case I'd say it's not relevant. Yeah, this is what I also think. That being said, I do think that a number of people on both sides of the aisle tend to interpret a woman's actions differently than they would a man's and might require more out of a woman candidate than they would a similar man, but it's not clear if this would actually result in someone not voting (or voting the opposite party) who would have voted for that candidate otherwise. theblackw0lf posted:One reason she lost that I haven't heard covered much is because her supporters were reluctant to post on social media. It's kinda hard to distinguish how much of this was people fearing reprisal and how much was people just not being enthusiastic about her as a candidate. My wall had a significant amount of pro-Hillary posts, though those posts kinda seemed like they would have the opposite effect because it was really obvious that the people in question were heavily invested in her campaign to the point where they literally compared her to MLK Jr and would constantly reference her "I'm With Her" slogan. I think that Hillary's more enthusiastic support also suffered from the fact that it seemed to be very disproportionately common among well-off professionals in east/west coast cities, and when you see a huge amount of support from people who you (often rightfully) believe are out of touch, it can have the opposite effect. In my case, these same people would often post about how great things are in general and how the country is moving in the right direction, and I couldn't help but feel some disgust towards that sort of opinion when it's coming from a consultant making $200k in NYC or DC. A significant portion of the liberal base being out of touch is a legitimate problem, and it's the sort of thing that many people *will* notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Higsian posted:If her policies were exciting and newsworthy, perhaps even radical, maybe the news would have covered them? Like Trump and his dumbass wall that the press talked about endlessly. Maybe if she picked a few big ticket exciting policy ideas and just hammered them over and over the press would have no choice but to talk about them whenever they talk about her. Like Bernie and that stump speech he gave over and over again. Just to repeat the tired cliche its become, but why bother covering boring policy details when The Wall and EMAILS and pussy grabbing and scandals are much more entertaining and provocative? Maybe she should have pulled a Trump and said "I'm going to slaughter the poo poo out of the rich! I don't care!". But no we get cringeworthy poo poo like "trumped-up trickle down economics".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Higsian posted:If her policies were exciting and newsworthy, perhaps even radical, maybe the news would have covered them? Like Trump and his dumbass wall that the press talked about endlessly. Maybe if she picked a few big ticket exciting policy ideas and just hammered them over and over the press would have no choice but to talk about them whenever they talk about her. Like Bernie and that stump speech he gave over and over again. The tuition-free college plan she worked out with Bernie was pretty drat exciting if you ask me. She should have also hit more on reinstating public option for health care, and expanding medicare to 55 and over. Both which she was in favor of and mentioned them a few times after the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:To, who, Internet randos who only have professional third-party analysis from guys with teams of polllsters and the Facebook wall of their one redneck uncle to go by? Or the professionals with teams of pollsters whose entire job is to perform that analysis? The rumors out of the campaigns were that they were seeing very similar results to the external polling. There were dozens of high quality polls being released right up until the last few weeks. I'm not sure what you think was different between the internal and external polling. Hillary thought she was going to win the day of. Trump* thought he was going to lose. *well, Trump's team, at least. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:* I say "mostly" because the whole "getting paid huge sums of money to give speeches at investment banks" thing was a legitimate issue that I never saw any good excuses for, and for many people it basically cemented Hillary as a candidate that was not aligned with the interests of the poor/working class. While it's not technically bribery, there's also a tacit expectation that you'll at least maintain a positive relationship with the organization in question if you agree to something like that. I don't believe that Clinton was chatting with bankers about how to gently caress over the working class or anything, but I think that many politicians just listen to these people talk and think "wow this person seems really intelligent and reasonable" and genuinely become convinced that they know what is best (and I imagine this is how most lobbying works). Her speaking fees were not unusual, the Clintons have given thousands of speeches. It looks bad but it's hardly the "she's completely in the pocket of the banks" that people pretend it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
This doubling down on her 200 million dollars' worth of bank speeches is exactly Ytlaya's point. There's no way to justify this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:* I say "mostly" because the whole "getting paid huge sums of money to give speeches at investment banks" thing was a legitimate issue that I never saw any good excuses for, and for many people it basically cemented Hillary as a candidate that was not aligned with the interests of the poor/working class. While it's not technically bribery, there's also a tacit expectation that you'll at least maintain a positive relationship with the organization in question if you agree to something like that. I don't believe that Clinton was chatting with bankers about how to gently caress over the working class or anything, but I think that many politicians just listen to these people talk and think "wow this person seems really intelligent and reasonable" and genuinely become convinced that they know what is best (and I imagine this is how most lobbying works). Pretty much, medicine companies do the same to doctors through conference and seminar talking spots all the time. It's an easy way to influence (bribe) someone without actually breaking any laws. Anyone would realize that this kind of money is ethically dubious if they'd actually think about it but then again that's the entire purpose of this specific form of enticement payments(again, bribe), to not make them think about it too hard. I mean you're a great politician/doctor/literally any person with influence over procurement or legislation. Maybe you talking for an hour really is worth all that money from private interests and is just fair compensation. There's doesn't even have to be an explicit agreement of collusion, over long periods of times these kind of relationships turn into that regardless because the money flows one way and one way only. You're not getting paid for any one thing, but you can be sure that if you do something that displeases the private interest holder than that money will stop flowing. International diplomats are trying to do the same to Trump right this loving moment by reserving suites at Trump hotels. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:This doubling down on her 200 million dollars' worth of bank speeches is exactly Ytlaya's point. very few of those speeches were to banks, dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Fine, financial institutions and shadow banking institutions so we cover hedge funds and insurers too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The rumors out of the campaigns were that they were seeing very similar results to the external polling. There were dozens of high quality polls being released right up until the last few weeks. I'm saying that the passive-voice 'wasn't detected' wasn't just a thing that happened to the people whose jobs it was to detect it. It's not like in the last few weeks of the election millions of people abruptly changed their minds completely, the information was out there their sampling methodology just didn't accurately reflect it. The voters weren't any different this year than every other year, the only thing that really changed is that going in their big campaign computer (they had a literal big campaign computer lol) was calibrated for Clinton vs. Rubio not a populist uprising and the Clinton campaign, which was to a large extent functionally the same thing as the press establishment, was too up its own rear end to ever stop and reassess the situation. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:That's not true at all. Clinton had a poo poo load of plans she wanted to enact. And they were specific unlike trump's. We're talking about her level of perceived sincerity: she sounded about as sincere as an HR Manager does when they tell you that they will totally look into the complaints you've brought up regarding discrimination (while talking to the legal team behind your back about how to fire you quickly). And the reason she was perceived to be insincere is that the Democratic voters looked at the things she said she would do if elected and compared them with things like her voting record and the sources of her income and they saw someone who didn't practice what she preached, unlike Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I'm saying that the passive-voice 'wasn't detected' wasn't just a thing that happened to the people whose jobs it was to detect it. It's not like in the last few weeks of the election millions of people abruptly changed their minds completely, the information was out there their sampling methodology just didn't accurately reflect it. It may have actually been shy Trump supporters, as well. We don't know if it was LV problems or Trump supporters lying. We'll have to see in the post election analysis. enraged_camel posted:And the reason she was perceived to be insincere is that the Democratic voters looked at the things she said she would do if elected and compared them with things like her voting record and the sources of her income and they saw someone who didn't practice what she preached, unlike Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The tuition-free college plan she worked out with Bernie was pretty drat exciting if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
cheese posted:Tuition free college...if your family makes 85k or less. Nothing like a means test and formulas to suck the wind out of any sweeping proposals that the 8 second attention span snapchat crowd could get behind. Seriously the moment you start adding adendums people turn out. "Government healthcare plan, for anyone making less then 20K or families making less then a combined total of 55K' just doesn't sell as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
cheese posted:Tuition free college...if your family makes 85k or less. Nothing like a means test and formulas to suck the wind out of any sweeping proposals that the 8 second attention span snapchat crowd could get behind. You do realize that that's still a lot of people, yes? 85K is above the median for all of the states; the vast majority of americans make less than 85k, so... what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:lol if you seriously think the electorate is that informed. If she was charismatic none of that would matter. The Democratic voters were pretty well-informed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
cheese posted:Tuition free college...if your family makes 85k or less. Nothing like a means test and formulas to suck the wind out of any sweeping proposals that the 8 second attention span snapchat crowd could get behind. I focused so much on NOT-TRUMP the whole time that I didn't know this little tid-bit. (I don't really watch any live TV though, so that's on me) That's arbitrarily low, like I made a TON less than most of my friends and in my county near D.C., I was basically a penny-pinching pauper at $38 a year and with an equal husband, we'd still have been scraping that limit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Just to repeat the tired cliche its become, but why bother covering boring policy details when The Wall and EMAILS and pussy grabbing and scandals are much more entertaining and provocative? Maybe she should have pulled a Trump and said "I'm going to slaughter the poo poo out of the rich! I don't care!". But no we get cringeworthy poo poo like "trumped-up trickle down economics". No joke I was thinking of something to do with slaughtering Wall St. Not literally of course, but commanding the FBI to go all RICO on Wall Street and change laws to be able to persecute executives of companies for various misdeeds. Just something extreme to the point where people just have to talk about it and the media has to cover it because their audience wants to hear about it. Doesn't matter if she can even make these things happen, just promise them and honestly try to push the promises through is enough. I'd like to see more politicians promise the limit of what they want to do and then follow through with trying. You don't need to achieve a promise, just let people see that you really tried and shine a light on who blocked it. People say Obama wanted better health care than what he got, but we have no proof of that because all the dealing was behind closed doors. Make the republicans publicly vote against good policy. Their base might eat up their excuses, but it will keep the Democratic base riled up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
cheese posted:Tuition free college...if your family makes 85k or less. Nothing like a means test and formulas to suck the wind out of any sweeping proposals that the 8 second attention span snapchat crowd could get behind. Also, it required students to work, so it really wasn't free tuition as promoted but rather significantly subsidized tuition. Obviously, it is still an improvement but I can see why excitement was muted. Furthermore, a lot of people she needed to reach wanted something else besides education. Also, she was fairly vague about other policy and her past support for free trade cost her severely. Policy wise she had a weak hand even if most of what Trump was saying was vague or empty promises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
cheese posted:Tuition free college...if your family makes 85k or less. Nothing like a means test and formulas to suck the wind out of any sweeping proposals that the 8 second attention span snapchat crowd could get behind. It was a $125,000 or less http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-education.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, it required students to work, so it really wasn't free tuition as promoted but rather significantly subsidized tuition. Obviously, it is still an improvement but I can see why excitement was muted. Furthermore, a lot of people she needed to reach wanted something else besides education. This is the one she created with Sanders. I don't remember it having a work requirement. edit: found where the $85,000 figure came from. http://time.com/4394699/hillary-clinton-free-college-bernie-sanders-tuition/?iid=sr-link1 quote:Clinton’s new plan would make college tuition-free for all students from families making $125,000 a year or less. It would start at $85,000 and increase by $10,000 each year, paid for by closing high income tax loopholes, according to a campaign aide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:It was a $125,000 or less That seems much more reasonable to me, but maybe I'm one of those "out-of-touch" rich people making a whopping $38k a year. *edit* isn't the most telling factor that the cost of a single year of college is more than the average yearly income of 2 PEOPLE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:We're talking about her level of perceived sincerity: she sounded about as sincere as an HR Manager does when they tell you that they will totally look into the complaints you've brought up regarding discrimination (while talking to the legal team behind your back about how to fire you quickly). Wasn't her voting record like 95% similar to Sanders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:56
|
|