Not a Step posted:

When I said that video was an unfunny desperate and out of touch gasp to appeal to millennials the Hillarymen all scoffed that 'No, its a parody!'.

Yeah, I understood that it was a parody. An unfunny desperate and out of touch parody.

Typo posted:

i thought it was funny

I loled when the trump ad came on that video

it has like 14 mil views I think it was prob the most successful hillary PR thing

Typo posted:

i thought it was funny

Trumps Baby Hands posted:

This is how you do a between two ferns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVIpY-r95w8

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

Remember when she explained to that dude who was almost wrongfully executed that the death penalty was a good thing?

Trumps Baby Hands posted:

This is how you do a between two ferns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVIpY-r95w8

Freaking Crumbum posted:

people resoundingly told me "NO!" four years ago, but what they meant was "please just wait your turn for 2020 you'll get swept in for sure!"

Proud Christian Mom posted:

The 2020 motto is "Won't take no for an answer!"

Proud Christian Mom posted:

The 2020 motto is "Won't take no for an answer!"

Captain_Maclaine posted:

You're nuts if you don't think they'll go with "Hindsight is 2020."

Captain_Maclaine posted:

You're nuts if you don't think they'll go with "Hindsight is 2020."

quote:

There was a huge imbalance in advertising at the presidential level in 2016, with Clinton and her allies pummeling Trump and his allies in almost every media market in the country. Pro-Clinton advertising dominated on local broadcast, national cable and even local cable television. Decades of research (e.g. Zaller 1992) suggests that in the face of such imbalanced message flows, the advantaged candidate should benefit at the polls. And yet in spite of those advantages, Hillary Clinton lost many of the states that saw the most political advertising. Is the message from 2016 that political ads just do not work anymore?

Although the impact of advertising in 2016 on the outcome of the general election race was likely minimal, we urge caution in concluding that television advertising is no longer effective. For one, we never expect advertising to have a large effect in a presidential race. Research has demonstrated that advertising effects are smaller in presidential contests than in other down-ballot races (Ridout and Franz 2007), and this may be especially true in a presidential race that features two well-known candidates, a former First Lady and a celebrity who has been on Americans� television screens for decades. Because voters have a large store of pre-existing information about the candidates, they are less open to influence by advertising. Nevertheless, advertising is an important way in which candidates can talk directly to voters, and research does suggest that advertising advantages do correlate with movement in the polls (Ridout and Franz 2007; Sides and Vavreck 2014). Despite the fact that pro-Clinton advertising dominated the airwaves overall, in several of the pivotal states � especially Michigan and Wisconsin � Donald Trump actually had ad advantages on local broadcast up until the very last week of the campaign, which may well have mattered.

Second, in a presidential race, advertising must compete with almost limitless media coverage of the race, which tends to neutralize the impact of the advertising. Perhaps the intense media coverage in 2016 was driven less by the messages of political advertising as it has been in the past and more by Donald Trump�s Twitter account. Although the Clinton campaign may have viewed the news media�s focus on Donald Trump as beneficial to them, they also claimed to have trouble getting coverage of policy statements. Yet the Clinton campaign itself did not focus on policy in its own messaging either, a tactic that very well may have hurt their candidate, which leads to our next point.10

Third, all ads are not equally effective. Even though the ad advantage may have been in Clinton�s favor, it does no good if the message does not resonate with voters. Of course, the jury is still out on how effective Clinton�s message was, but evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007). In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump�s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media�s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice. Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton�s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making (Mattes and Redlawsk 2014). These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media�s lack of focus on Clinton�s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump. As such, it may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.

While advertising patterns in the 2016 presidential race were certainly a departure from the past, it seemed to be business as usual in the House and Senate. The tone of these races was very similar to the past few election cycles, as was the volume of advertising. And the sponsorship of advertising, with outside groups taking on a heavier role in the Senate than House, also reflected the past few elections. Indeed, it is almost surprising that so much has stayed the same with television advertising given the recent rise of digital media and social media.

But will down-ballot candidates in the future read the outcome of the 2016 presidential race as a signal that spending millions on television advertising just is not necessary? While many might consider such an approach in 2018, we think it would be unwise for candidates to use Trump as a model. For sure, future campaigns will invest heavily in new approaches to reach voters, from local cable to digital and web-based advertising. But at least in 2016, it seems that these additional tactics are viewed as just an �add-on� way to reach voters (a complement if you will) rather than as a replacement for more traditional ad buys on local broadcast stations. In sum, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton violated so many of our rules of political science that generalizing from it strikes us as risky � at least for now.

Illusive gently caress Man posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

Echo Chamber posted:

I remember 2007 when this video was bad.

But it's somehow way better than Fight Song.

Echo Chamber posted:

I remember 2007 when this video was bad.

But it's somehow way better than Fight Song.

call to action posted:

Actually, Hillary can't run in 2020, because she would be nearly the same age as Bernie was in 2016 and Bernie Was Too Old, as we were repeatedly told.

call to action posted:

Actually, Hillary can't run in 2020, because she would be nearly the same age as Bernie was in 2016 and Bernie Was Too Old, as we were repeatedly told.

WAPO 3/18/16 posted:

I�m not sure who the �Democratic leaders� are who think that, because the only one the article quotes is Bill Richardson, who�s been out of politics for a few years and frankly was never considered a strategic genius to begin with. But here�s the truth: Hillary Clinton doesn�t need white men.

Let�s be more specific. Clinton will have the support of tens of millions of white men. But she doesn�t need to do any better among them than any Democrat has, and even if she does worse, she�ll probably be completely fine.

That�s because whites are declining as a proportion of the electorate as the country grows more diverse with each passing year. In 1992, just 24 years ago, whites made up 87 percent of the voters, according to exit polls. By 2012 the figure had declined to 72 percent. Since women vote at slightly higher rates than men, white men made up around 35 percent of the voters.

Those numbers will be lower this year, which means that even if nothing changes in how non-whites vote, Republicans will need to keep increasing their margins among whites to even stay where they are overall � in other words, to keep losing by the same amount.

Ferrinus posted:

Ferrinus posted:

Not a Step posted:

Ironically if Hillary had actually run on her qualifications and policies instead of resorting to constant personal attacks she probably would have won.

mugrim posted:

Eh, not even qualifications, she did that a fair bit. She needed to tell people what shes actually going to change in their life.

ScrubLeague posted:

Bernie is old as gently caress mate

The Brown Menace posted:

Well she did tell a bunch of blue collar workers that they would lose their jobs

Freaking Crumbum posted:

that, and in one interview she did, the news person asked her "would you ever lie to the American people?" and instead of just saying "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" she went on this rambling answer that included phrases like "well I would always do my best to be as honest as circumstances allow".

how can you have that much experience in politics and be that bad at politics? how

Freaking Crumbum posted:

that, and in one interview she did, the news person asked her "would you ever lie to the American people?" and instead of just saying "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" she went on this rambling answer that included phrases like "well I would always do my best to be as honest as circumstances allow".

how can you have that much experience in politics and be that bad at politics? how

Not a Step posted:

Ironically if Hillary had actually run on her qualifications and policies instead of resorting to constant personal attacks she probably would have won.

Ferrinus posted:

The Brown Menace posted:

Well she did tell a bunch of blue collar workers that they would lose their jobs