|
What does it mean that Clinton didn't campaign enough in Rust Belt states? Not trying to be stupid, but I assume her campaign spent a bunch of money on ads there and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? "Donald Trump really cares about me because he spent four hours in our state today."
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
Violator posted:What does it mean that Clinton didn't campaign enough in Rust Belt states? Not trying to be stupid, but I assume her campaign spent a bunch of money on ads there and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? even if you don't think going to the rust-belt states matter (it does), her campaign spent the most ad money in states like california
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:oh boy here comes a five-page nuh-uh yuh-huh session on whether saying the misogyny of black men impacted the vote is "blaming" them It's not. End of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Violator posted:
nope! Violator posted:and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? Yup! it's not just the people whose hands the candidate personally shakes in that deli, it's the people they know and will talk to, it's the people who'll see the candidate in that familiar context and feel that they at least exist on their plane of reality, it's the personal anecdotes the candidate can then reuse later to show they can relate to the people they're asking to vote for them like real loving humans with needs and desires, which Clinton couldn't. In the end that kind of gladhanding can meaningfully connect with tens or hundreds of thousands of people on a much more personal, motivational level than a generic attack ad. And pointedly not visiting somewhere the other candidate has spent time on sends the message you've written off everyone there; like, he showed up why can't she. "Donald Trump really cares about me because he showed up in my hometown and shared a genuinely emotional story about the personal trials of a random joe like me he met on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton stayed in California and talks in the carefully scripted institutional tone of my boss letting me know my position's been terminated, except when she's in a closed-door meeting with millionaire bankers where she warms up a bit." A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Violator posted:What does it mean that Clinton didn't campaign enough in Rust Belt states? Not trying to be stupid, but I assume her campaign spent a bunch of money on ads there and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? To answer the first question: They pulled resources from some areas and it seems to have really bit them in the rear end on election day. Not necessarily just ads, but GOTV efforts and the like. I think you raise a good question on how much that mattered. I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Violator posted:What does it mean that Clinton didn't campaign enough in Rust Belt states? Not trying to be stupid, but I assume her campaign spent a bunch of money on ads there and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? It's pretty ballsy not to visit a state at all like Wisconsin, Trump gambled and held a bunch of rallies there I'm just assuming it had to help some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Violator posted:What does it mean that Clinton didn't campaign enough in Rust Belt states? Not trying to be stupid, but I assume her campaign spent a bunch of money on ads there and I'm surprised being there in person really matters that much today. I live near a mid-sized metropolitan area and I have no idea if either candidate campaigned in person near me and I don't know how doing so would have changed my mind on what I think of their policies. Does giving a speech, shaking hands, and having photo-ops in delis and coffee shops really make that big of an impact? Does this go back to the idea of "all politics is local"? https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/797492671631790084 I think i saw another piece of data that showed Hillary spent more in ads in Omaha Nebraska than all of the rust belt states she needed to win combined. Basically Hillary values loyalty above competence and that's why she's a bad candidate (and probably would've been a bad president too). Edit: The strategy was that they didn't want to campaign too hard in the rust belt states so as to not alert the Trump campaign that they were focusing there so they wouldn't either, which is as insane as you think it is. Edit 2: The reason why she spent so much in a guaranteed blue state like California is because she wanted to run up the score on Trump, lmao Mister Fister fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:even if you don't think going to the rust-belt states matter (it does), her campaign spent the most ad money in states like california
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:To answer the first question: In the lead up to the election, I remember photos of busy Democratic GOTV campaign offices and talks of huge amounts of money spent contrasted with photos of literally empty offices with Trump signs on them and insiders worried that almost no money was earmarked by Trump for GOTV efforts. Did this end up being accurate and not ending up mattering? I believe Trump spent like 1/10 the money Hillary did, was that money just more wisely spent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:even if you don't think going to the rust-belt states matter (it does), her campaign spent the most ad money in states like california Is this true??? Jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Also, there's a bit of a cart-horse situation, in that a Clinton who more aggressively campaigned in those states would likely have tailored a message more specific to those electorates, and would probably have focused more on economic platitudes than emphasizing how Trump was racist/sexist/a Putin puppet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:even if you don't think going to the rust-belt states matter (it does), her campaign spent the most ad money in states like california I think the heavy CA push was part, run up the score on the popular vote when she takes the electoral college win by whatever margin, and another part return political favors to her large donors in California media. This seems to be a forgettable thing to do if she had won, but knowing it replaced resources badly needed elsewhere in states that were taken for granted was unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I think the dems are handling it ok. Passively resisting the election outcome (while at the same time providing valuable data on our voting machines) via the recounts and not encouraging protests but asking people to "let their voice be heard." The Pelosi re-election is not a stunner nor would it have been better to replace her. The Republican congressional leadership remains intact, but now they have someone to rubber stamp all their legislation. If we're going to be negotiating with the devil I don't want a nice guy on my side. I want someone who knows every dirty trick and negotiating tactic, and who's still going to engage in driving party recruitment. Reed is nudging the CIA findings on Russian hacking in the media, and it's getting play. But few in the party establishment would want to use this to remove Trump or are vocal about any such desire. This is because they know if the party decides to toss the election results as an alleged fraud, not only would they be universally hated but you completely destroy the public's faith in free elections - which would hurt the dems much more deeply as the minority party. It's the same thing we were talking about with Trump questioning the outcome of the election, and how damaging that could be. We are questioning the outcome, but through methods that are not direct attacks on Trump or the Republican party, through methods that are not destructive... you could say the CIA report is destructive in terms of Trumps credibility, but he already killed it in the crib by saying, "The CIA is wrong and I know this somehow." Or maybe not, maybe people believe what he says now and I'm the outlier. Obama continues to talk about his legacy, which after PPACA is gone and the SCOTUS gets their 5 will be equivalent to getting a Nobel Peace Prize in advance for expanding drone strikes into a completely new and very lethal form of warfare that Americans rarely give a poo poo about. Thanks Obama. So, "Wait and see how this guy does" isn't really the approach they're taking. The approach the Democrats are taking is that we are now the Republican party after the 2008 election. There's no reason to think that Trump won't come in on Day One, saying to the Democrats , "this is what I want to do as my first major policy, and I have the votes to do it, with or without you." I guess, in terms of difference between Presidents... that would be identical to Obama and the stimulus. But we don't know what exactly will happen with Trump, so we have to wait until the government changes hands before we start to kick up the opposition against actual Trump (approved) legislation, rather than Trump himself. The trigger got pulled on November 8th, the bullet just doesn't get here until January 20th. All the wailing and gnashing in the world isn't going to stop that from happening. So they continue passive resistance through government channels and prepare to fight the first of many monsters coming down the pipeline. Mister Fister posted:Basically Hillary values loyalty above competence and that's why she's a bad candidate (and probably would've been a bad president too). I don't disagree with you on this completely. However you seem to miss that Donald also has this trait. A lot of military in his cabinet, why is that? Generals follow the chain of command, and they are used to taking orders from the President. Why do you think he's doing this weird and elaborate interview process at his Tower, he's trying to find people who have similar goals and who will forcefully back him when he wants to get something done. But I don't think seeking those characteristics is uncommon in politics. It's probably more common now than ever in the past. sd6 posted:Is this true??? Jesus christ I know that a lot of Democrats, including myself, were trying to sound alarm bells in the closing 2 weeks, saying that she needed to come to Wisconsin badly. And she had multiple opportunities, and then she was supposed to come to WI, but it changed to Chelsea who ran around the state making brief appearances in a handful of cities. That was it. I'm pretty sure Trump visited WI a few times and once late in the election. Acid Haze fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Violator posted:Did this end up being accurate and not ending up mattering? I believe Trump spent like 1/10 the money Hillary did, was that money just more wisely spent? Well I think it was mostly accurate when those comparisons came out. At about that time news came out that HFA was pulling resources from areas they didn't think were necessary. There was an article written somewhere that I'm having trouble finding that delved into the effect on local GOTV efforts for Democratic Party/HFA where apparently they were begging for help or whatever. As far as the money not wisely spent: I'd agree. From what I could tell her campaign bought a whole bunch of ads but showed the same ad for over a month.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Well, you wouldn't want her to take a historically blue state like California for granted, would you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
In 2008-2012 both black men and black women had the extra motivation to turn out because they wanted to see someone like them finally have the most powerful position in the country. In 2016 black men did not have that extra motivation but black women still did because a woman was running. I think that explains why the drop in turn out came from the men. I don't know if that should be called sexism or not, but it's not the sort of sexism that just loves pussy grabbing. It's just the reality that voters care the most about people like themselves which is often to the detriment of other groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Violator posted:I believe Trump spent like 1/10 the money Hillary did, was that money just more wisely spent? Sorta, yeah. There's also a limit to how much ad money can do for an awful campaign with a hateful candidate in a year when the electorate is rejecting anything that smells like status quo with unprecedented vehemence. Clinton's machine was predicated on the assumption that cash is king; Trump tweeted a bunch and got the newspapers to put his name in the headline of every article. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:In 2008-2012 both black men and black women had the extra motivation to turn out because they wanted to see someone like them finally have the most powerful position in the country. In 2016 black men did not have that extra motivation but black women still did because a woman was running. I think that explains why the drop in turn out came from the men. It's not just lack of turnout, it's male POC switching to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Sorta, yeah. There's also a limit to how much burning dollars can do for an awful campaign with a hateful candidate in a year when the electorate is rejecting anything that smells like status quo. Incumbents did better in 2016 than in previous years. 98% of incumbents were re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not just lack of turnout, it's male POC switching to Trump. jfc Clinton is even more awful if that happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Incumbents did better in 2016 than in previous years. 98% of incumbents were re-elected. Everyone hates Congress but loves their Representative and Senators, so they aren't considered part of the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Maybe misandry is real?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:jfc Clinton is even more awful if that happened Yes because being a woman is awful, good point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
There really is something I can't put my finger on but maybe Biden should have run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I can't believe she's within 150k of Obama 2012. The only problem is that Trump is way up on Romney. The fundamental problem is the American electorate has gone completely insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes because being a woman is awful, good point. This country is far more racist than it is sexist and Obama is enjoying the highest approval ratings in years, yet you think those black and hispanic men hate Hillary because she's a woman. Maybe you're being racist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:There really is something I can't put my finger on but maybe Biden should have run. Neoliberalism? No wait, that can't be it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Maybe Obama would have lost to Trump, too, since he didn't do poo poo in WI/MI either during his campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:This country is far more racist than it is sexist and Obama is enjoying the highest approval ratings in years, yet you think those black and hispanic men hate Hillary because she's a woman. Maybe you're being racist? Maybe you're a loving moron. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Maybe you're a loving moron. Says the guy who can't fathom Hillary ever being at fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Maybe you're a loving moron. Why can't Hillary Clinton being a woman be a factor for you instead of the factor? Nobody disagrees that sexism played a role in this election, but you're making it out to be the only thing driving these trends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Says the guy who can't fathom Hillary ever being at fault. Y'know, some people's rap sheets don't even need to be looked at. You just know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Maybe Obama would have lost to Trump, too, since he didn't do poo poo in WI/MI either during his campaigns. It'd be hard to argue against the guy who bailed out the auto industry from implosion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:It'd be hard to argue against the guy who bailed out the auto industry from implosion. What about the guy who voted against doing it  ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Why would Clinton spend so much in Los Angeles? That's just unfathomable. Are parts of Nevada and Arizona in the LA market?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Why would Clinton spend so much in Los Angeles? That's just unfathomable. Are parts of Nevada and Arizona in the LA market? to get illegal aliens to vote for her
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310039-donald-trump-wins-wisconsin-recount Official Wisconsin recount is in, Trump picked up an additional 162 votes heh
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:What about the guy who voted against doing it He voted FOR bailing out the auto industry in a separate bill, however TARP was used to bail out the auto industry and he voted against TARP because the majority of the money was used to bailout banks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:He voted FOR bailing out the auto industry in a separate bill, however TARP was used to bail out the auto industry and he voted against TARP because the majority of the money was used to bailout banks. I'm sure this nuance would be easily messaged. Maybe he should say "He was for the bailouts before he was against it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
zegermans posted:Maybe Obama would have lost to Trump, too, since he didn't do poo poo in WI/MI either during his campaigns. Obama energized huge demographics that lean D but generally don't turn up to vote like no other candidate in recent history; he was the first Presidential candidate (if not President) for progressives since Carter and the first Presidential candidate for black voters ever. Which was a field where his predecessors had been so weak that Democrats had been calling Bill 'biggest expansion of the prison system ever' Clinton "America's first black president" only a few years prior. Clinton was the first Presidential candidate for, uh... Lena Dunham I guess? She kinda coulda used the hedge but instead she Edible Hat posted:Why would Clinton spend so much in Los Angeles? That's just unfathomable. Are parts of Nevada and Arizona in the LA market? treated the Presidency like it was an Academy Award her party was giving her for a lifetime of influence peddling, and the campaign was her acceptance speech A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:54
|
|