frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

Didn't she technically come right up to the barrier and then fail to break it?

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

Didn't she technically come right up to the barrier and then fail to break it?

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

Didn't she technically come right up to the barrier and then fail to break it?

freckle posted:

Pretty sure he's referring to "First Female Major Party Presidential Nominee" as the barrier.

Which is just lmao.

AceRimmer posted:

quote:

Known for Politics
women's rights
women's suffrage
feminism
civil rights
anti-slavery
stockbroker
journalism
free love

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

Do you think it would have been Clinton if she won?

freckle posted:

The gently caress does "American Moses" mean?

freckle posted:

"Like an American Moses, she was an imperfect prophet, leading women to the edge of the Promised Land. Now it’s up to another woman to enter it."

freckle posted:

The gently caress does "American Moses" mean?

e: Oh lol.

"Like an American Moses, she was an imperfect prophet, leading women to the edge of the Promised Land. Now it’s up to another woman to enter it."

freckle posted:

The gently caress does "American Moses" mean?

e: Oh lol.

"Like an American Moses, she was an imperfect prophet, leading women to the edge of the Promised Land. Now it’s up to another woman to enter it."

Joementum posted:

Sounds like she'll be Person of the Forty Years instead.

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/806480050942054402

Not a Step posted:

Clinton making a strong statement against DAPL wouldn't have cost her hardly anything while juicing up her base, but she had visions of a blue sweep so better not irritate anyone at all!

Seriously though, Clinton had her roots in advocacy and public service, but somewhere along the way all of that died in her.

Fake Edit: How does the Democratic candidate for President not spew fire about Flint at every campaign stop? Flint is a perfect storm of racial and class issues brought on by abandonment from the economic elite and a Republican governor. That poo poo would have sold like hotcakes across the entire country. Theres something for everyone to identify with in that horror show.

AceRimmer posted:

Gizmoduck_5000 posted:

I thought that once, but it turns out that old right wing shitbags die and are replaced by younger right wing shitbags. A lot of people who voted for trump were gen-Xers.

AceRimmer posted:

Not a Step posted:

All the polls told Hillary she was going to win in an historic landslide. She wanted to be not only the first woman president, but the biggest election landslide since Reagan. She thought the best way to do that was to avoid taking any stance on anything that could turn off voters. Coming out against DAPL would have turned off energy voters, being loudly pro-BLM (after the primary) would have turned off the white southerners she thought was going to hand her NC. She thought she had the anti-DAPL and pro-BLM people in the bag - what were they going to do, vote Trump? - so she took them for granted and focused on not pissing off the pro-DAPL/anti-BLM people. She constantly triangulates her positions and takes up whatever stance she thinks will play well to the room - the famous public and private faces.

Trump meanwhile just said poo poo that he knew would play to his supporters and piss off the people that weren't going to vote for him anyways. That dumb wall of his cost him zero votes because anyone outraged at the wall wasn't voting for him anyways with all the other horrible poo poo he said, but it gained him enthusiastic support from racists and anti-immigration people. It probably even helped his numbers with Latins, because they're an incredibly diverse group not only by national origin but by generation, and theres more than a few who think illegal immigrants actively undermine their standing in society.

Clinton making a strong statement against DAPL wouldn't have cost her hardly anything while juicing up her base, but she had visions of a blue sweep so better not irritate anyone at all!

Seriously though, Clinton had her roots in advocacy and public service, but somewhere along the way all of that died in her.

Fake Edit: How does the Democratic candidate for President not spew fire about Flint at every campaign stop? Flint is a perfect storm of racial and class issues brought on by abandonment from the economic elite and a Republican governor. That poo poo would have sold like hotcakes across the entire country. Theres something for everyone to identify with in that horror show.

Concerned Citizen posted:

hillary did talk about flint a lot earlier on in the campaign, especially during the primary when she rooting out lead a central piece of her infrastructure plan, but yes, i think by the end her polling told her that the single biggest thing that moved voters was just telling people what a historically terrible president donald trump would make. that ended up being a huge mistake.

Concerned Citizen posted:

hillary did talk about flint a lot earlier on in the campaign, especially during the primary when she rooting out lead a central piece of her infrastructure plan, but yes, i think by the end her polling told her that the single biggest thing that moved voters was just telling people what a historically terrible president donald trump would make. that ended up being a huge mistake.

Joementum posted:

Sounds like she'll be Person of the Forty Years instead.

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/806480050942054402

Concerned Citizen posted:

hillary did talk about flint a lot earlier on in the campaign, especially during the primary when she rooting out lead a central piece of her infrastructure plan, but yes, i think by the end her polling told her that the single biggest thing that moved voters was just telling people what a historically terrible president donald trump would make. that ended up being a huge mistake.

Pollyanna posted:

also whatever she had to say about Flint and BLM is overshadowed by "superpredators"

Joementum posted:

Sounds like she'll be Person of the Forty Years instead.

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/806480050942054402

AceRimmer posted:

Quick, what was Hillary's PR stunt during the 2016 flooding in Louisiana? Because I have no loving idea

Gizmoduck_5000 posted:

Yeah me too, if we even get to vote at all in the future. GOP will 100% spend the next 4-8 years trying to ratfuck the election process as much as possible, and the dems will just turn around and present their asses with a whimpered apology like they always do when a republican raises their voice, because they are a bunch of spineless, incompetent cowards. They ceded every inch of ground they had in order to make the oval office their alamo, and did nothing to stop a right wing coup of congress and state governments.

2018 sure as gently caress isn't going to go our way. District lines and voter suppression all but ensure that the House will remain a permanent republican majority (oh you thought the district lines were getting redrawn in 2020 in any way that would actually make a difference? Hahahahahahahaha not anymore), and we'll have to fight tooth and nail just to not lose seats in the senate midterms.

Face it, USA is effectively a one party state now and probably will be for at least a generation. The Republicans won. We might get the white house again, but it won't matter because it will be another neolib doormat with an unrequited fetish for bipartinsanship just like the one we've got now.

Not a Step posted:

Clinton stopped giving a poo poo the moment the primary was over, because Flint was only ever a thing to bludgeon Sanders with for her. Once she no longer had to deal with a threat from the left she stopped giving a poo poo about them because her models told her they were a captive voting base and she didn't care about them to begin with.

There are going to be so many books written about how legendarily bad Hillary Clinton was this election. Her name is going to go down in history as a cautionary tale of overwhelming incompetence.

Concerned Citizen posted:

i think the electoral results made it pretty clear that actual voters did not care about a 20 year old clinton speech

AceRimmer posted:

Quick, what was Hillary's PR stunt during the 2016 flooding in Louisiana? Because I have no loving idea

AceRimmer posted:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/hillary-clinton-louisiana-floods-trip/

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

lol you mean the black people that showed up in fewer numbers than for Obama?

Black peoples' only value is in voting for the current Dem candidate, they def don't have any feelings or thoughts of their own.

Concerned Citizen posted:

i know we're all nihilists here but she was right, the last thing louisiana needed was a presidential campaign. but of course trump got the W there because he didn't give a poo poo if the security for his event disrupted the actual process of rescuing people, but that's how it goes.

Concerned Citizen posted:

i wouldn't even really call her legendarily incompetent. i would say that if you ran the same campaign she ran with, say, joe biden as the nominee, he would have won easily. hillary as a candidate was bad enough that it lead to the weird results we saw. the campaign did all the right stuff from a technical point of view - it raised a ton of money, allocated its resources fairly well, invested deeply in data and analytics, and managed its staff well across multiple states with surprisingly little drama. as far as a presidential campaign goes, it was actually shockingly well run. but for reasons we don't totally know yet, there were flaws in the analytics models. they were giving the campaign bad strategic advice - the data told them PA, MI, and WI were locked up and OH was tied.

here's where it gets sad: the campaign made the crucial decision early in the campaign to eschew persuasion - wherein field organizers/volunteers speak to people the data says are less likely to support clinton - in favor of a base turnout strategy. so they played big in milwaukee, but ignored waukesha county. their logic was that the general election calendar was too compressed to do both effectively, so they should focus on just one. this was a mistake because it did not allow them to validate their support models.. had their field data come back from the persuasion canvasses and revealed in aggregate that the analytics models were wrong, they could have been trained in that data and it would have shown that they were losing areas they needed to win big. and that would have lead to a wildly different strategy than the one they pursued.

from a non-technical point of view outside the mechanics of running a modern presidential campaign, i think they essentially poll-tested the campaign into the ground. it was very slick, the ads had incredible production values (most ads are terrible in that regard), and every message was something that everyone can agree with. i think the issue is that voters at this point are so accustomed to seeing ads that everyone can agree with that they see right through them. the message is sterile and boring, which doesn't translate to any kind of enthusiasm. for the clinton campaign, they thought "boring is good" because they were ahead. that was a mistake.

Concerned Citizen posted:

i wouldn't even really call her legendarily incompetent.

quote:

i would say that if you ran the same campaign she ran with, say, joe biden as the nominee, he would have won easily. hillary as a candidate was bad enough that it lead to the weird results we saw. the campaign did all the right stuff from a technical point of view - it raised a ton of money, allocated its resources fairly well, invested deeply in data and analytics, and managed its staff well across multiple states with surprisingly little drama. as far as a presidential campaign goes, it was actually shockingly well run. but for reasons we don't totally know yet, there were flaws in the analytics models. they were giving the campaign bad strategic advice - the data told them PA, MI, and WI were locked up and OH was tied.

quote:

here's where it gets sad: the campaign made the crucial decision early in the campaign to eschew persuasion - wherein field organizers/volunteers speak to people the data says are less likely to support clinton - in favor of a base turnout strategy. so they played big in milwaukee, but ignored waukesha county. their logic was that the general election calendar was too compressed to do both effectively, so they should focus on just one. this was a mistake because it did not allow them to validate their support models.. had their field data come back from the persuasion canvasses and revealed in aggregate that the analytics models were wrong, they could have been trained in that data and it would have shown that they were losing areas they needed to win big. and that would have lead to a wildly different strategy than the one they pursued.

from a non-technical point of view outside the mechanics of running a modern presidential campaign, i think they essentially poll-tested the campaign into the ground. it was very slick, the ads had incredible production values (most ads are terrible in that regard), and every message was something that everyone can agree with. i think the issue is that voters at this point are so accustomed to seeing ads that everyone can agree with that they see right through them. the message is sterile and boring, which doesn't translate to any kind of enthusiasm. for the clinton campaign, they thought "boring is good" because they were ahead. that was a mistake.

Concerned Citizen posted:

well it's not exactly shocking that black voters did not show up in the same numbers for the first black president vs. hillary clinton. i don't think anyone ever really expected that to be the case. but her vote share among black voters did not really ebb, especially in the primary.