Concerned Citizen posted:

yeah i'm sure he's gonna retire on that.

he made less than basically anyone in equivalent position in on a campaign or especially in private sector.

Serf posted:

you're drat good at missing the point lol. the vast majority of Americans see a salary of 120k and think that's a vast amount of cash. poo poo that's like 4 times what I make lmao. its a matter of perspective. saying it's "just 120k" is like making GBS threads on people who will never earn that much

Concerned Citizen posted:

you probably could not retire at $120k, from a single year of income, living in brooklyn, after taxes, in your early 30s. unless you're really loving frugal. $120k/y would be around the 90th percentile of american income - good, but about the same as a well-paid engineer. i am really not sure why so many people here are gawking at $120k/y like it's some insane and incomprehensible amount of money. it's not?

Concerned Citizen posted:

i agree that the message testing structure that dems use is flawed, but that's not necessarily hfa's fault. that's the entire campaign consultant class on both sides of the aisle, except for donald trump who just did whatever. literally everyone does it the way hfa did it. it would be somewhat absurd to single them out as incompetent for following standard practices.

Concerned Citizen posted:

ok well the vast majority of americans do not run billion dollar organizations that elect the president of the united states. $120k is not that amazing, and i would hardly say anyone was "getting rich" because they got paid in proportion to their responsibilities. again, many consultants in the past have made millions of dollars off of their campaigns and that didn't happen with hfa.

Serf posted:

I still can't believe we trusted a man named robby mook tbh

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

And he was in charge of another major losing campaign before Hillary hired him lol

It's almost like the connections you have are more important than your actual skills

Concerned Citizen posted:

ok well the vast majority of americans do not run billion dollar organizations that elect the president of the united states. $120k is not that amazing, and i would hardly say anyone was "getting rich" because they got paid in proportion to their responsibilities. again, many consultants in the past have made millions of dollars off of their campaigns and that didn't happen with hfa.

Cyron posted:

I don't know how i feel about this russian poo poo, on one hand it would be a huge save to remove trump from power for the safty of the country, on the other hand if Hillary get the office it means the neoliberals will learn nothing and we just go back sheep buying brands because they give 2 dollors to gay rights, and in 2020 we will just get republicans in the white house anyways.

Serf posted:

"120k isn't some insane and incomprehensible amount of money" - a neoliberal

come down to rural Georgia and ask some of the poultry plant workers or hardware store clerks how much 120k is lol

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

HAHAHA. The thread title.

Anyway, I honestly don't want to give you too much poo poo, and I appreciate you sharing your experience, but I really feel like this:


Is something that needs to be examined. Conventional campaign wisdom seems less important to me, then actual positions on poo poo that matters to the people you want to vote for you.

But maybe you are just talking about messaging, and not the message.

Serf posted:

"120k isn't some insane and incomprehensible amount of money" - a neoliberal

come down to rural Georgia and ask some of the poultry plant workers or hardware store clerks how much 120k is lol

Baloogan posted:

remember when trump was robbing his campaign blind and it was just scam. lamo. hfa more like hfu

Concerned Citizen posted:

ok well the vast majority of americans do not run billion dollar organizations that elect the president of the united states. $120k is not that amazing, and i would hardly say anyone was "getting rich" because they got paid in proportion to their responsibilities. again, many consultants in the past have made millions of dollars off of their campaigns and that didn't happen with hfa.

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Also how do you know this? Over a billion dollars was "officially" spent for the Hillary 2016 campaign, where did that money go? Was it actually the number of people in the campaign? Because I find that doubtful to me.

Homeless Friend posted:

Reminder Mook said he would "rather lose than win" in any context despite running a campaign.

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Also how do you know this? Over a billion dollars was "officially" spent for the Hillary 2016 campaign, where did that money go? Was it actually the number of people in the campaign? Because I find that doubtful to me.

Concerned Citizen posted:

that was jennifer palmieri, the communications director. she was not very good imo

Baloogan posted:

remember when trump was robbing his campaign blind and it was just scam. lamo. hfa more like hfu

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

Uh. I could retire on $120k

Concerned Citizen posted:

when i say message testing, i mean the process by which campaigns find their message. first you focus group and ask randos a lot of questions, then some guys distill hours of conversation from a bunch of focus groups into various key issues of concern. the campaign comes up with answers to these (hopefully aligning with the candidate's actual values, although not every campaign is exactly ethical) and poll tests them all. then they take the top testing issues and convert them into the campaign's message. they may also drill down into certain constituency groups that they find it strategically valuable to deal with. that's the science of campaigns and it's standard practice. however, i personally think this process makes cookie-cutter campaigns that are increasingly transparent to voters. i actually think that was part of the reason sander's message was so compelling - both the message and the candidate were raw and conveyed an authenticity that you couldn't find with clinton.

Concerned Citizen posted:

quote:

3. i am very much aware that the campaign's strategy was a bad one - that is obvious, but it wasn't dysfunctional. as i said before, they were making arguably correct decisions given the data they had - they just didn't have the correct data and did not do the work they needed to do to validate their data

quote:

i'm not talking about bernie. the mere fact that hillary isn't an incumbent meant that she had to build a staff quickly and draw from a pool of people who had never worked for her, unlike obama who 1. had years to staff out and 2. could draw from a huge pool of '08 alumni who all wanted to work for him.

quote:

regardless, i think hillary actually did a pretty good job at this. i have qualms with various staffing decisions that were made (in particular a bloated management structure created by the desire to promote junior staffers who worked during the primary). her efforts were vastly superior to obama '08, which was a shitshow papered over by the quality of the candidate.

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

So I guess we sort of agree. Focus grouping is useful for a faceless "brand," but if you have to run on some carefully constructed image, instead of being a face for your message, maybe you aren't cut out for being a politician?

As a principled politician you should use marketing to sell your message, not adapt your message to what the marketing tells you.

anime was right posted:

the left is hosed if they keep falling for a concern troll named concerned citizen lmao

anime was right posted:

the left is hosed if they keep falling for a concern troll named concerned citizen lmao

anime was right posted:

the left is hosed

Not a Step posted:

At some point youre going to have to come to terms with the fact that a gotv program that fails to win the election because it didn't turn out the vote in the states that matter was actually a really bad gotv program. The popular vote is dumb garbage for idiots. Hillary turning out lots of people in safe blue states while pissing away battleground states means she actually ran a really lovely gotv program based on some really suspect 'science' that maybe should be thrown in a dumpster and started from scratch.

I swear you're like one of those quant idiots protesting that 'No really, the algorithms were good!' in the wake of the 2008 meltdown.

quote:

Do you not get how insanely dumb this is? 'They made correct decisions, they just didnt have the right data or do any of the work to validate that data'. That means they made incredibly stupid decisions. Collecting and verifying data is part of the decision making progress! Not a thing you do if youve got the time! If you arent verifying your assumptions and doing your best to collect quality data, nothing else matters. They made dumb rear end decisions. Bad decisions. There is no possible way to make a good decision with a data game that hosed up. You cannot decide the answer is 4 if you never actually verified the numbers were 2 and 2, or the requested operation was even addition!

quote:

How does the defacto queen of the Democratic Establishment, who ran a campaign in 2008, who got ready for her run in 20 loving 14 and had probably been planning it since 2008, not have staff ready to go in every state? HOW IS SHE THAT poo poo AT POLITICS!? Its only her loving life long ambition! Everyone knew she was going to run years ago!

And of course, even if she did have trouble getting good staff, you would think listening to Bill would be part of her strategy, but she blew him off because Hillary is insanely bad and incompetent, as was her entire staff.

Concerned Citizen posted:

ok well what you call suspect "science" is actually repeatedly validated studies over two decades that dictate standard practice as to how to turn out voters. these are not game-changers - we can increase the likelihood of a mid-likelihood voter making it to the polls by 8% if we knock on their door on the saturday before election day. a good mail piece might hit 2-3%. they did not focus on turning out people in safe blue states - they spent millions and millions of dollars on battleground state turnout. maybe the program did not do as well as you'd hope - there's literally no way to know that until the voter turnout histories come out. but i can say that if there was a turnout issue anywhere, it was because 1. the tageting was sub-optimal and 2. because the gotv program is only part of the story - you can do voter contact until the cows come home but that's only going to get you so far. you have to have a candidate that compels people to the polls. you can't gotv your way to victory.


and i think if you're going to blame anyone for that, it's probably elan kriegel, the head of hfa analytics. i mean, it was a lot of the same people who did the vaunted obama '12 data program. and they come and say "the data program you gave us $50 million to build is spectacular. and here's what our data says," why would you question it? when the models have succeeded in accurately predicting the vote share in 2 consecutive elections, why would you think this is the time they'd fail? obviously, they should have questioned it. but it's hard to say "oh they didn't collect and verify the data" - they thought they did. that's what they were spending all that money on, surely? well, they were wrong and it was a mistake to not be collecting that field data.


she had no problem getting senior-level staff, but hiring mid-level and junior-level staffers before a campaign exists is impossible and they make up the bulk of your hires. and i think the reason why no one wants to listen to bill is because he blew up hillary '08 with his forceful "advice" and no one ever forgave him for that.