|
The election came down to a rock-paper-scissors match over which one of two overwhelmingly disliked sleazeballs would have the final scandal of the pre-election season. What an inspiring election that was. Isn't it the job of the campaign staff to ensure that their efforts can't be completely ruined by random chance?
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:As someone who worked in that industry: I didn't say that. I wasn't whining. I said it's good to have young people involved. Do not put words into my figurative mouth, please. mannerup posted:lol nobody thought the left were too good for them and you're in one steinrokkan posted:The election came down to a rock-paper-scissors match over which one of two overwhelmingly disliked sleazeballs would have the final scandal of the pre-election season.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
at you thinking its something to admire or look up to.
at that dumb poo poo. I suggested someone younger run because for a fair number of people seeing a 70 year old woman collapse on her way to her limo isn't really inspiring. Neither is seeing Nancy Pelosi's leather face saying that the DNC will listen to their constituents after loving up royally by not listening.
|
steinrokkan posted:The election came down to a rock-paper-scissors match over which one of two overwhelmingly disliked sleazeballs would have the final scandal of the pre-election season. Random chance meaning the deliberate intervention by the FBI head? You're acting as though this was just a random natural event and not Comey violating the Hatch act to throw the election to Trump. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 09:31 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
I thought it was Bernie who ruined the election for Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The election came down to a rock-paper-scissors match over which one of two overwhelmingly disliked sleazeballs would have the final scandal of the pre-election season. Even in a sane election, which this sure wasn't, everyone's vulnerable to happenstance. Obama in 2012, which we now think of as a mismatch, had some close calls. (Obama looked tired in one debate and that killed his lead and put Romney ahead for awhile.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:I thought it was Bernie who ruined the election for Hillary? Vlad Peeps posted:I'm not saying Hillary was a good candidate, but like how? Activating their "Make Email Stories Stop Happening" machine? Tweeting "Actually, we aren't running a child sex trafficking ring" a bunch of times? Frankly, I think part of the problem was Clinton wasn't funny in crowds. I've read she's got a dry humor in small gatherings but that doesn't help at all when campaigning. And even if it did, she rarely displayed it. Nichael has issued a correction as of 09:45 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:I thought it was Bernie who ruined the election for Hillary? Bernie's camp doesn't say the primary was rigged? Hillary wins. Comey decides to give a poo poo about the Hatch act? Hillary wins. DNC leaks don't happen? Hillary wins. Wikileaks dumps all the DNC leaks at once instead of spacing them for maximum effect w/ misleading editorializing? Hillary wins. Hillary doesn't loving collapse in public after a storm of conspiracy theories about her health? She wins. Hillary actually describes her plans during the debate instead of telling 80 million people to check her website? She wins. Maybe I'm wrong and some of this would get lost in random noise, but anything that gives Hillary another half a point means she wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Nichael posted:
Epistemic closure is kind of A Bad Thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:Why this idea that it has to be just one thing? It was really narrow and any bump for Hillary would've flipped it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihtX86JzmA
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:Bernie's camp doesn't say the primary was rigged? Hillary wins. As for describing her plans during the debate, that wouldn't have helped. The debates were no substance. She just needed some kind of catchphrase or funny line in them. Neeksy posted:Epistemic closure is kind of A Bad Thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:Why this idea that it has to be just one thing? It was really narrow and any bump for Hillary would've flipped it. And yet the thing she had control over is the thing she didn't do. Plus the leaks wouldn't have had that much damage if she came up with a good explanation that wasn't "Colin Powell told me it was okay!" or didn't refuse to answer questions or release transcripts earlier, thus building the "she must be hiding something" media narrative that were then empowered by the leaks later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:I'm not saying Hillary was a good candidate, but like how? Activating their "Make Email Stories Stop Happening" machine? Tweeting "Actually, we aren't running a child sex trafficking ring" a bunch of times? Probably by having a good enough baseline of support (on account of running a stronger, less mismanaged and more positive campaign) that a scandal can't sink you. Being reactive and defensive is not a viable winning strategy. Machiavelli wrote that the definition of statesmanship is building a barrier capable of protecting your country from the tides of fortune when they come. This is really relevant to the Clinton campaign, which was just shockingly complacent and seemed unprepared to deal with any hardship, no matter how predictable, it's like she did absolutely nothing to build any sort of a strategic lead that would be able to absorb even a slight fluctuation in support. steinrokkan has issued a correction as of 09:58 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
Nichael posted:On the contrary, I'd say it's pretty good in some cases. The other side is talking about a secret pizza rape ring. I don't really have to consider that particular point of view. Said conspiracy being a product of epistemic closure; the same phenomenon that made the Clinton campaign ignore the pleas of offices in swing states to pursue a strategy advocated by her unquestioning inner circle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:I'm not saying Hillary was a good candidate, but like how? Activating their "Make Email Stories Stop Happening" machine? Tweeting "Actually, we aren't running a child sex trafficking ring" a bunch of times? To be fair, not having a private email server and not doing shady political poo poo on it while committing lapses of judgment that would have had lesser federal employees dismissed or jailed would have been a pretty solid initial step. Yes, other SoS have used private email servers, but none of them went on to run for President and sustain incredibly close scrutiny. Maybe some forward planning would have been helpful on that one. Perhaps, if your political ambitions haven't been sated yet as Secretary of State, going to the mortician and picking out some beautiful skeletons to go home and put in your closet isn't the greatest idea. Nichael posted:She wasn't a good candidate. She was extremely qualified to be president, but as I keep saying, qualifications and substance don't matter. You do get that one of the qualifications for being president is being a good candidate, right? You need some personal charisma and power to get things done on a national stage. The policy wonks should aim for cabinet positions and stay in their holes, not try to lead countries. She was the most qualified person wonk ever. Its weird, this election has the smartest nerd and the dumbest jock to ever live running head to head and it turns out smarmy charisma beats nerdy intelligence when running for the most visible position in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton’s best riposte to Trump? Radical transparency Would this have worked?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:You do get that one of the qualifications for being president is being a good candidate, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:To be fair, not having a private email server and not doing shady political poo poo on it while committing lapses of judgment that would have had lesser federal employees dismissed or jailed would have been a pretty solid initial step. Yes, other SoS have used private email servers, but none of them went on to run for President and sustain incredibly close scrutiny. Maybe some forward planning would have been helpful on that one. Perhaps, if your political ambitions haven't been sated yet as Secretary of State, going to the mortician and picking out some beautiful skeletons to go home and put in your closet isn't the greatest idea. And if you know there are skeletons in your closets, you need to work extra hard on getting ahead of your opponent so when they come out, there is some expendable margin of votes you can safely lose, instead of coasting along and being indignant that you are not 50% ahead of the other guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
 I know everyone couldn't decide whether she should stay in the woods or not, but it looks like we won't have to. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Nichael posted:Yes. I've communicated exactly that about eighty times now. Apparently I did a poor job of it though. Maybe I have more in common with Clinton than I thought (dear god). Well, when the sentences 'She wasn't a good candidate' and 'She was extremely qualified to be president' show up in proximity to each other you're kinda sending mixed messages. The two are mutually exclusive. I do definitely think she had the policy chops to be president, even if the heart to do anything more than maintain the status quo was burned out of her long ago. I don't think anyone who isn't being deliberately contrarian doubts her intelligence or experience. She just lacks - or at least doesn't display - any kind of heart or charisma. You kinda need those to win in the era of mass media.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
nikitakhrushchev posted:
this is like, exactly why everyone with a brain hates her lamo
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Nichael posted:I don't think those things hurt that much. It's hard to say exactly how many NeverClinton Sanders people there were, but I doubt it's many. I'm thinking more like lazy people who get their news from Facebook or browsing Imgur or something, and see posts every week about Hillary rigging the primary. Imgur was painful during the election. They were wildly pro-Sanders during the primary, and then I didn't see a single pro-Hillary post make it to the front page the entire campaign, while anti-Hillary poo poo made it all the time, producing hundreds of thousands of views daily. Yeah, I think it had an effect. quote:As for describing her plans during the debate, that wouldn't have helped. The debates were no substance. She just needed some kind of catchphrase or funny line in them. I'm not really a Sanders fan, but I respect how well he can stay on-message. Ask him about the weather and he'll somehow end the sentence with free college or something. Vlad Peeps has issued a correction as of 10:06 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Well, when the sentences 'She wasn't a good candidate' and 'She was extremely qualified to be president' show up in proximity to each other you're kinda sending mixed messages. The two are mutually exclusive. Vlad Peeps posted:I'm not talking hardcore Berniebros. Though I have personally encountered some who voted Trump to send some kind of message. (One because he mistakenly thought he wasn't living in a swing state...) Baloogan posted:this is like, exactly why everyone with a brain hates her lamo
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Nichael posted:They're not though. If she was plopped into the role of president, she'd be extremely qualified to do it. She can still be a bad candidate too. I guess you don't know what the definition of "qualified" is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Nichael posted:They're not though. If she was plopped into the role of president, she'd be extremely qualified to do it. She can still be a bad candidate too. Its entirely possible to think two things are terrible at once! Most humans have the capacity to dislike *multiple* things! And no. Part of the job of being president is being spokesperson for the nation. Hillary couldn't even be an effective spokesperson for Hillary. If plopped into the role of president she would continue to be extremely bad at connecting to the American people and explaining herself and her view of the world to them. Those roles are kinda crucial. Nix Panicus has issued a correction as of 10:18 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Its entirely possible for thing two things are terrible at once! Most humans have the capacity to dislike *multiple* things!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Nichael posted:That's a good point, but then we come back to the fact that we currently have Trump as spokesman for the nation. I don't believe the man has the capacity for empathy. Well yeah. Just because I criticize Hillary doesn't mean I automatically think Trump is *good* or anything. The man is a narcissistic racist who doesn't give a poo poo about anything but himself and who will turn over the running of the government to the closest thing to an evil cabal America can muster. But he does know show business and whatever you might think about him personally, you have to admit hes a hell of a salesman, even if what hes selling is death and hate. If anything that shows how important media savvy is to the role of the modern president. America turned down a nerd genius in favor of a hateful snake oil salesman. *Some* charisma and messaging ability is absolutely necessary. E: I don't *like* Hillary, but I sure as poo poo voted for her because Trump is a waking nightmare. Unfortunately Im now one of those coastal elites that just ran up the score Nix Panicus has issued a correction as of 10:25 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
nikitakhrushchev posted:
in africa they call her sister hillary
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Well yeah. Just because I criticize Hillary doesn't mean I automatically think Trump is *good* or anything. The man is a narcissistic racist who doesn't give a poo poo about anything but himself and who will turn over the running of the government to the closest thing to an evil cabal America can muster. But he does know show business and whatever you might think about him personally, you have to admit hes a hell of a salesman, even if what hes selling is death and hate. Except I do like Clinton but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
nikitakhrushchev posted:
http://pagesix.com/2016/12/05/hillary-clinton-throwing-party-to-thank-millionaire-donors/ posted:One insider said, “Hopefully there’s no balconies so nobody can jump.” sounds like a fun time very nice of her to throw a party for her core constituency to show her appreciation 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
nikitakhrushchev posted:
quote:Guests expected are big bundlers including Harvey Weinstein, Anna Wintour, Alan Patricof, Tory Burch and Marc Lasry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
quote:Unusually, Kaine is throwing his own holiday celebration in NYC earlier the same day. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
 Stay safe optics ghost
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I guess you don't know what the definition of "qualified" is. You might say he wasn't qualified to give the definition.  Not a Step posted:Well yeah. Just because I criticize Hillary doesn't mean I automatically think Trump is *good* or anything. My liberal friends would have you think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
If the WI/MI/OH/PA working class really revolted for Trump because they all feel betrayed by neoliberal policies, why did Clinton dominate among working class voters who ranked the economy as the most important issue? Was it just low enthusiasm? I'll grant that the campaign had a messaging problem and a resource allocation problem. I think it's exploitative for the socialists to say James Comey had nothing to do with it -- he did -- or for them to say racism/sexism had nothing to do with it -- it did. But I'll also concede we shouldn't have lost this election, even allowing for all that. Still, I'm not willing to jump on board the "Neoliberalism is reason Dems lost!" bandwagon. Perhaps that's a fraction of it, but it seems rather over-simplistic to me, and it doesn't completely jive with the evidence. Personally, I think if the Dems had put up Joe Biden -- a popular figure not under FBI investigation -- then they probably would've won, but it still would have been a squeaker in the Rust Belt. Bernie would have crushed it nationwide. But do I think it's his anti-neoliberal policies that would've brought people to the polls? No, not at all. It would have been his outsider-ness, his integrity, his appeal to change. And -- in the Rust Belt -- his anti-trade stance, which I 100% believe is false hope, the same kind of false hope Trump had on offer. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back no matter what those guys propose; Clinton was the only one honest enough to admit that, it just turns out being honest about a harsh truth doesn't get you elected, lying to people does. I think socialists who insist Rust Belt and working class voters would've been drawn to Bernie because of his pitch for free health care and free college tuition are kidding themselves, it had nothing to do with those specific policies and therefore markedly less to do with neoliberalism than they would like everyone else to believe. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to alternate ideas. Basically, I would like for someone on the Bernie side of things to refute this article. To be clear, I'm game for a social democracy as much as Bernie supporters are, I think most of us are trying to get to the same place, and in hindsight nominating Bernie would've definitely been the smarter choice; we'd probably be enjoying a unified Democratic government right now if we had. And if Bernie decides to run for the nomination in 2020 against Joe Biden (lol), I'll probably end up supporting Bernie for that very reason, even though I probably agree with Biden on more. I'm just not in complete agreement with the whole Young Turks argument that the American people are craving a socialist president. Bloops Crusts has issued a correction as of 10:42 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:
WWC outreach
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:If the WI/MI/OH/PA working class really revolted for Trump because they all feel betrayed by neoliberal policies, why did Clinton dominate among voters who ranked the economy as the most important issue? Was it just low enthusiasm? Her margin of favourability over Trump on economic issues in the pivotal states was very, very slim, suggesting that plenty of people turned to Trump for economic guidance. Nobody expected / claimed that the support for Trump due to economic concerns was unanimous, nevertheless it's beyond any doubt it was sufficient for his purposes. steinrokkan has issued a correction as of 10:46 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:If the WI/MI/OH/PA working class really revolted for Trump because they all feel betrayed by neoliberal policies, why did Clinton dominate among working class voters who ranked the economy as the most important issue? Was it just low enthusiasm? I don't have a ton to add here, just want to say I agree with the majority of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Probably by having a good enough baseline of support (on account of running a stronger, less mismanaged and more positive campaign) that a scandal can't sink you. Being reactive and defensive is not a viable winning strategy. So we're ignoring the media demand for a horse race narrative no matter what? How whenever she grabbed a comfortable lead, people started talking about how unlikeable and untrustworthy she was, and how following regulations on destroying her blackberry was the height of shady corruption.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
To further emphasize. It seems to be a popular and widely-held belief that if Bernie were to run against Trump in 2020, Bernie would be a shoe-in to win. What if it were Elizabeth Warren against Donald Trump in 2020? If that were the match-up, are you still 100% convinced Trump will lose? I'm not. I think it would be a really close thing. Even though there's almost zero daylight between Bernie and Elizabeth on the issues. Which to me, suggests one of two things: 1) Either Bernie's appeal had a lot more to do with personality, charisma, and magnetism than his supporters like to admit, or 2) Putting up a female candidate is a real electoral risk that's guaranteed to lose you some points. Which implies sexism isn't just a blip, it's actually profound enough to register, and it probably hurt Clinton quite a bit. Either one cuts against the argument that Clinton only lost because she wasn't socialist enough. Basically I think there's a lot more to this than just socialism vs. neoliberalism. I think at the core, Donald Trump simply managed to put his finger on the people's wrists and feel for the pulse of their darkest hearts. And yes, there are a lot of racially-aggrieved white people out there, even among the traditional Democratic voting blocs in the Rust Belt, who see red whenever the system does anything to help an African American or a Latino American. That's a big part of the reason why Medicaid and Obamacare and food stamps are unpopular: they do a lot to help minorities and not a lot to help white people. When someone like Trump comes along and says we're gonna slap a 35% tariff on anyone who outsources your job, oh and we're also gonna make sure we keep out a bunch of non-whites and make sure they don't take away from you and your communities, yeah sorry, that probably has a lot of appeal to a lot of voters. I don't think I'm being unfair by saying that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:To further emphasize. It seems to be a popular and widely-held belief that if Bernie were to run against Trump in 2020, Bernie would be a shoe-in to win. You're making good points. I think both things are true. Sanders is more charismatic than Warren or Clinton, and I do think inherent sexism in the electorate would hurt Warren as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 11:11
|
|