|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:This is honestly fair, with the caveat that she also refused to stand up for issues unless it was politically convenient. It's funny she loves Hamilton so much, as the protagnist tells Burr "If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?" when i say well-run, i mean the actual day-to-day process of building a presidential campaign. it's really, really hard - hiring on thousands of people in a few months, many of whom are political activists with no real job experience, having them work a hundred hours a week, that is a recipe for meltdown. many presidential campaigns fail badly at this and end up becoming cauldrons of drama when they begin to scale up. the fact that the clinton campaign not only actually ran, but ran smoothly and drama-free was a miracle. especially since their hiring calendar was compressed. from an operational standpoint, the hillary campaign of 2016 was better than the obama campaign of 2008 and similar to the obama campaign of 2012. that said, the actual strategic decisions were obviously not great. i think a lot of the top strategists bought into their own bullshit about the power of big data to predict outcomes. and there was good reason to buy into it, because it worked spectacularly well in 2012 and 2014. i will say that given the data they had, they made what seems to be the right decisions. they went wrong in not taking the time to question if their data might be wrong.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
The campaign was bad and the candidate was bad and the platform was bad and the politics were bad. Like the Trump campaign was legendarily incompetent but still managed to win. That's how bad the Democrats were thus cycle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Well there where the white women at? "The bernie bros intimidated 14 billion white women into not voting" - Peter Daou
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:This is honestly fair, with the caveat that she also refused to stand up for issues unless it was politically convenient. It's funny she loves Hamilton so much, as the protagnist tells Burr "If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?" It was a well run campaign, except for all of the ways it continually hosed up and lost to a reality TV clown. She wasn't a bad candidate, except she refused to effectively communicate her ideals - if she has any - to voters and actively chose not to sell herself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Hillary's campaign looked good but it was bad. Trump's campaign looked bad but it was not bad. The end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:when i say well-run, i mean the actual day-to-day process of building a presidential campaign. it's really, really hard - hiring on thousands of people in a few months, many of whom are political activists with no real job experience, having them work a hundred hours a week, that is a recipe for meltdown. many presidential campaigns fail badly at this and end up becoming cauldrons of drama when they begin to scale up. the fact that the clinton campaign not only actually ran, but ran smoothly and drama-free was a miracle. especially since their hiring calendar was compressed. from an operational standpoint, the hillary campaign of 2016 was better than the obama campaign of 2008 and similar to the obama campaign of 2012. I know the point is not poo poo on the cogs in the machine who showed up and did as good of a job as could be expected with complete idiots who could not find their rear end with both hands in charge. But the point remains you had complete idiots who could not find their rear end with both hands in charge. I'm not blaming the people on the ground, I'm blaming the horrifically terrible candidate who valued loyalty over competence and focus testing over having real ideals. Clinton's inner circle perfectly reflected who she is and her values as a person, and they were all utter garbage. The people on the ground did the best they could. They just worked for idiots. E: Hillary had *decades* to tap the best and brightest people in politics and assemble any dream team she wanted. She had complete run of the DNC and all of the resources it could offer. Her team perfectly reflects her choices and personality. Weaver was an idiot but its not like Bernie had time to shop around, or really any kind of experience at the national level. Clinton hand picked the council of morons she surrounded herself with Nix Panicus has issued a correction as of 16:10 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:It was a well run campaign, except for all of the ways it continually hosed up and lost to a reality TV clown. again, i think she was a bad candidate and that her well-run campaign was felled by a series of poor strategic decisions. i think her campaign was like the german army at the beginning of world war 1 - operationally and tactically it was the best army in the world by far. it was the envy of the world in the prowess of its logistics and the discipline of its troops. but then they lost at the battle of the marne and all of that didn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Hillary's campaign looked good but it was bad. trump's campaign was definitely really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:The campaign was bad and the candidate was bad and the platform was bad and the politics were bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:trump's campaign was definitely really bad. https://twitter.com/TIME/status/806476696257957888
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Yeah we can all agree this Trump clown really ran a poo poo campaign right? Oh the person who had twice as much money as him and like actual experience doing this who still lost...well that's actually a really nuanced discussion we need to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
who the gently caress cares if the Clinton campaign was "well-run" or not? they lost. they sucked rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
RE persuasion vs base turnout: During the GE, people I know and respect, people on my Facebook feed, people on this website, people I spoke with in person, basically everyone I knew who discussed politics was generally in agreement that if you needed to be persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton you are just bad, just a poo poo human being in general, and you should be ashamed of yourself like, people were posting links to this Onion article unironically. This was the state of the discourse. how the gently caress did we not see this coming
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Yeah we can all agree this Trump clown really ran a poo poo campaign right? Oh the person who had twice as much money as him and like actual experience doing this who still lost...well that's actually a really nuanced discussion we need to have. it was a poo poo campaign even if it won, because the opposition's was shittiter
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
The idea that Trump ran a campaign that was secretly good is a lie dreamt up by people to insulate themselves from how bad the Hillary campaign was run. Wanna see a video of a slow pan over desperate emails from ground level volunteers in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania asking for support from the national office being read in a sad VO while Ashokan Farewell plays in the background.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I'm the 100% true reporting about Trump's team literally dicking around on 270toWin in order to formulate strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
It sounds like CC's point is that it was a good campaign with exceptionally poor leadership, with the result being that they did the wrong thing very effectively.Concerned Citizen posted:there was good reason to buy into it, because it worked spectacularly well in 2012 and 2014. Uh... Did you experience a different 2012 and 2014 elections where the Democrats did well instead of steadily losing much needed ground? Concerned Citizen posted:trump's campaign was definitely really bad. Trump consistently did a lot more with a lot less. If you are talking about impact per dollar spent, it seems like he actually did really well, at least relatively? Also total impact, really. And if you're not measuring the quality of a campaign by it's impact on the race and public perception in strategically important places, I'm not sure what metric you're using. Of course, he only did well speaking relatively, in terms of absolutes he did not great. But his campaign was absolutely good at at least one thing: Catching and holding media attention, and being the one to shape the narrative. Both exceptionally important things for a campaign to be good at. You're acting a bit like a coder who thinks the fact that they wrote something absolutely beautiful means they wrote good code, even though it doesn't meet specs and in reality their code is poo poo. Beauty is a bonus, but does not confer quality on its own. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 16:18 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:The idea that Trump ran a campaign that was secretly good is a lie dreamt up by people to insulate themselves from how bad the Hillary campaign was run. yeah nobody expected trump to win least of all donald trump which also helps explain the "hillary will win so ill just write in dickbutt lol" votes
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
loquacius posted:how the gently caress did we not see this coming
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I know the point is not poo poo on the cogs in the machine who showed up and did as good of a job as could be expected with complete idiots who could not find their rear end with both hands in charge. But the point remains you had complete idiots who could not find their rear end with both hands in charge. I'm not blaming the people on the ground, I'm blaming the horrifically terrible candidate who valued loyalty over competence and focus testing over having real ideals. i guess if you had to pin the blame on leadership, i would mostly pin it on head of analytics elan kriegel, who should have known better, marlon marshall who lead the field program and made the decision to focus on voter registration over persuasion, and the pollster joel benenson. benenson, of course, who famously nailed the 2012 election but also produced the focus group-approved empty wheelchair ad from wendy davis. all 2012 alumni, all one hit wonders. hillary's inner-circle was largely removed from the 2016 effort (after they tanked her in 2008) and they even sidelined bill pretty handily. i actually think robby mook did a pretty good job even if he will inevitably shoulder the blame for this for the rest of his life - he was mostly the guy doing the day-to-day stuff that worked really well. but, of course, he did sign off on some bad decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Dude did a metric poo poo-ton of rallies and got a lot of media attention from outrageous statements and tweets. Maybe his campaign wasn't technically "good," but it showed that "good" didn't matter. And he did it with a whole lot less money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
It would be nice to find the people who were responsible for any real technical bonuses to Hillary's campaign and keep them involved though, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Trump consistently did a lot more with a lot less. If you are talking about impact per dollar spent, it seems like he actually did really well, at least relatively? Also total impact, really. And if you're not measuring the quality of a campaign by it's impact on the race and public perception in strategically important places, I'm not sure what metric you're using. Of course, he only did well speaking relatively, in terms of absolutes he did not great. the reason trump had less was that he's massively cheap, and he did more by being enough of a train wreck that everyone had to report on him 24/7(not helped by Hillary ignoring the press for awhile) an amazing amount of things all had to go wrong for the trumpening to happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:trump's campaign was definitely really bad. and yet...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
not that we shouldn't learn from those things mind you, just that we shouldn't attribute any of donald j trump's victories to trump's hidden genius or whatever
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah, Trump ran such a horrible campaign that literally anyone on the planet aside from the exact specific combination of people who ran against him in both the Republican primary and the general election could have beat him. He ran a horrible campaign by the usual campaign standards. He treated politics like a big dumb show instead of as a serious endeavor. But here's the thing: politics actually is a big dumb show and always has been. Hillary's campaign made a bunch of devastating mistakes, and one of those mistakes was underestimating Donald Trump. But no, it's fine, he's an anomaly, never to be seen again, and it's all her fault anyway, everything will be fine, it's not like another horrible fascist populist con man, but with a brain in his head this time, will ever show up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
In the sense that a polisci professor would definitely give her an A+ for her campaign, Hillary won. And that's what really matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
saying "if Trump had run against anyone else he would've lost" is falling into the same trap as "Clinton will obviously beat Trump because he's incompetent" treat the man like the real threat that he is or be doomed to fail again
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
loquacius posted:RE persuasion vs base turnout: During the GE, people I know and respect, people on my Facebook feed, people on this website, people I spoke with in person, basically everyone I knew who discussed politics was generally in agreement that if you needed to be persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton you are just bad, just a poo poo human being in general, and you should be ashamed of yourself I honestly think a lot of people saw this coming but it got all drown out by polling numbers and news cycle churn poo poo in reality and polling numbers and circlejerk poo poo in this forum. Time travel before the primaries got started and you could see how it would be hard for a party that has had the WH for two terms to hold onto it given the general unhappiness about the state of the country out there. I think, in spite of his popularity, even Obama would have had a hard time winning a hypothetical third term unless he credibly offered some sort of new direction different than what we have been on. He probably would have still beat loving Trump though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:In the sense that a polisci professor would definitely give her an A+ for her campaign, Hillary won. And that's what really matters. i don't think anyone would give her an a+ on anything given that a racist orange baboon is currently howling from the highest treetops
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It would be nice to find the people who were responsible for any real technical bonuses to Hillary's campaign and keep them involved though, obviously. Anime Schoolgirl has issued a correction as of 16:27 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It sounds like CC's point is that it was a good campaign with exceptionally poor leadership, with the result being that they did the wrong thing very effectively. yeah that's about right. quote:Uh... Did you experience a different 2012 and 2014 elections where the Democrats did well instead of steadily losing much needed ground? from an analytics standpoint, 2012 and 2014 went really well. they perfectly projected the outcome of the race(s) well in advance. quote:Trump consistently did a lot more with a lot less. If you are talking about impact per dollar spent, it seems like he actually did really well, at least relatively? Also total impact, really. And if you're not measuring the quality of a campaign by it's impact on the race and public perception in strategically important places, I'm not sure what metric you're using. Of course, he only did well speaking relatively, in terms of absolutes he did not great. i guess my viewpoint is that trump's campaign won in spite of itself. or, probably more aptly, hillary lost more than trump won. at this point, we have some pretty effective tools for judging where to place ads for maximum effectiveness, measuring whether an ad moves voters, etc. trump didn't bother with that, just said "gently caress it" and bought $50m in poorly targeted cable/digital ads. it may very well be the case that trump's campaign, as it was, did very little to win over voters overall. that might be the case for hillary's campaign as well, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Trump's going to win in 4 years and we'll get more great insights like "Well yeah Trump would have lost to anyone except 2016 Hillary and 2020 ...[rolls dice]...Corey Booker."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It would be nice to find the people who were responsible for any real technical bonuses to Hillary's campaign and keep them involved though, obviously. i think the digital operation hillary put together was really good, real groundbreaking stuff. they were the first campaign to figure out how to use volunteers for mass texting to reach otherwise extremely difficult to contact voters. probably one of the things they would have been bragging on after the election when they won, except they lost and no one gave a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Lmfao if you don't have cash money on LePen winning the French election At the time I was having thoughts like "I don't think this shame strategy would work on independents whose entire social network isn't deep blue like mine is" but I never expressed any of them because I was being shamed so effectively that I was pretty sure I was wrong and bad for having the thoughts in the first place It was a specific kind of unity that won no one over and silenced constructive criticism and in retrospect, now that the shame spell is broken, the loss was inevitable docbeard posted:Yeah, Trump ran such a horrible campaign that literally anyone on the planet aside from the exact specific combination of people who ran against him in both the Republican primary and the general election could have beat him. I actually can't think of any Republican politician from the last 20 years or so who could have beaten him in a primary apart from maybe 2000s-era McCain, maybe. But yeah I do think this was an especially poor general-election matchup due to the nature of his outsider campaign and HRC's position as The Ultimate Insider.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Trump's going to win in 4 years and we'll get more great insights like "Well yeah Trump would have lost to anyone except 2016 Hillary and 2020 ...[rolls dice]...Corey Booker." or we could try to see trump as he actually is rather than play directly into his cult of personality
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
loquacius posted:At the time I was having thoughts like "I don't think this shame strategy would work on independents whose entire social network isn't deep blue like mine is" but I never expressed any of them because I was being shamed so effectively that I was pretty sure I was wrong and bad for having the thoughts in the first place The concept of shame itself is now dead. We need to start acting like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:or we could try to see trump as he actually is rather than play directly into his cult of personality img-parksandreclookingshocked.gif
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i think the digital operation hillary put together was really good, real groundbreaking stuff. they were the first campaign to figure out how to use volunteers for mass texting to reach otherwise extremely difficult to contact voters. probably one of the things they would have been bragging on after the election when they won, except they lost and no one gave a poo poo. Bernie was doing this during the primaries. I got texted by two different people, actually, because I didn't respond to the first one. And Bernie's autodialer website was of course fantastic. But none of this was enough to counteract being unpalatable to old people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:30
|
|