• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Chi Tribune: A series of strategic mistakes likely sealed Hillary Clinton's fate

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
I live in Ohio, I literally only saw the Trump is bad for my daughter ad. 50 times or so. Trump ads were about america and how he'll fight for your job. Great job hildawg. No reason ever given to vote for her. For. Not against him.

I remember the countless Trump gaffe threads here. I was like, "His supporters don't give a fuck". Let's move on.

The MSM coming out with a new gaffe per day. And we just focused on the outrage cycle.

The gaffes themselves only gave the guy more exposure and made him appear more "real" to his base.
 

Tobor

Member
I myself really thought the temperament issue was enough.

He really is unfit and he really is unqualified. That should have been enough.

That it wasn't is frustrating to me. Change above fitness to serve is frustrating.

All that said, I get it. She should have focused on jobs. Jobs jobs jobs. I have a good job and I live in a successful state. I'm "out of touch".
 

orochi91

Member

To the bafflement of Democrats in Wisconsin, for instance, the late Clinton push there did not mirror the economic messaging of the local labor unions.
One played back Trump's worst remarks about women; another, his mocking of a reporter with a physical disability; the last, a warning from a nuclear technician who worried that a reckless President Trump would start a war.

Yikes.

That whole paragraph conveys a high level of tone-deafness present during the late stages of Clinton's campaign.
 
xG7A9P.gif


Clinton campaign thought it was in the bag, they relaxed.
 

KingV

Member
After they lost Michigan once back in the primaries, there was no excuse for paying so little attention as to let it happen again in the general (and for the first time in 28 years at that).

Especially because Trump is sort of a bizarro world Bernie Sanders. He harnesses the same anger, but uses it for evil.
 
I've mentioned it before but the national debates certainly didn't help either.

Go back and watch Obama vs McCain or Romney compared to Hillary. Obama was always on the offensive addressing topics where Hillary was on the defense from her baggage.
 

faisal233

Member
Her lazy ass campaigning probably cost her those swing states. Moore had laid it out for her. Trump was putting in the hours. She wasn't paying attention. She was fucking around when she should have been living and visiting in all those states.

Not sleeping every night at home in New York. Especially after Bill had encouraged the fuck to run in the first place. Clinton's can burn at this point. Anything Trump does now is on them as far as I'm concerned.

Obama put in work and won. Trump put in work and won. Clinton schmoozed with her donors and lost. $2 billion wasted. Should have spent less money and showed up in the rust belt with a message more.
 
Just speaking anecdotally, I'm in a pretty solidly blue state and in the weeks leading up to the election I think every single Clinton TV ad I saw were purely negative ones focused on the vitriol Trump had said. Everything I saw from Clinton was just bashing Trump. Meanwhile Trump had maybe 1 ad I just saw over and over on TV that criticized Hillary on being corrupt and having a feckless foreign policy that led to ISIS but then it would pivot to showing Trump looking somewhat presidential shaking hands and the voice over guy doing the positive spiel of what Trump would do to make America great again with your typical patriotic imagery and so on.

If that's all Clinton was doing across the country then yeah, that's a pretty dumb strategy. They were both horribly unlikable candidates but Clinton seemingly did nothing to promote herself in any kind of positive fashion in the ads I saw.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
It seems like an easy enough answer (that has 2 parts) to me:

Clinton was the exact wrong type of candidate to throw at Obama's coalition, which already did not take the 2012 race in a landslide. That coalition was unique to Obama and not transferable. Just having Obama gave Clinton the seal of approval was never going to do it, and that was something that should have become apparent in mid-to-late 2015. Having the Rock raise your arm at the end of the Royal Rumble doesn't make you the Rock. You can't run a Washington insider/liberal elite trying to piece together that coalition and expect to reliably get salt of the Earth-type voters who primarily care about what's gonna happen to their jobs and families - coal miners who are upset their jobs have been or will be eliminated by EPA regulations or factory workers worried that their manufacturing jobs will move to Mexico. Democrats need a bigger coalition that includes Obama voters who are low-propensity voters. And they need candidates who appeal to that coalition and voters beyond it.

There's also the fact that, in retrospect, campaign messaging was so blatantly off - despite the fact that he doesn't have a plan or political knowledge to run a country, Trump's message was (at least in vague terms) about changing all the stuff people didn't like about Obama's term. What was Hillary's message? "Trump sucks and I am the only viable alternative." That's legitimately been the party line at the Clinton campaign for the last six months.

If you think the answer is that "the Democratic Party isn't liberal enough," you are very much confused.
 

ColdPizza

Banned
I don't think Comey did Clinton in, I think most people's minds were made up, and those that weren't didn't decide until the curtain was closed behind them to stir some shit:

The Jesse Ventura Effect.

Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't think Comey did Clinton in, I think most people's minds were made up, and those that weren't didn't decide until the curtain was closed behind them to stir some shit:

I don't think the "secret voter" was a thing at all. I think the problem was that polling runs on assumptions about what the electorate will look like that turned out to be way off base. It isn't the Bradley effect, its systematic polling error.
 
Its what I've said these past couple days: Attacking the other guy and calling anyone who might support him racist morons gets you nowhere. At best, people just won't vote (which is exactly what happened). You not only have to tell them WHY you're a better choice, you have explain to them how you'll personally benefit them. Economics (aka personal well-being) will trump social issues every time.
 
Ugh but everyone agreed with her strategy because it looked possible. So now they learn from whatever inaccuracies that made it look possible. Everyone thought she had PA or MI locked.
 

Averon

Member
Ugh but everyone agreed with her strategy because it looked possible. So now they learn from whatever inaccuracies that made it look possible. Everyone thought she had PA or MI locked.

Her losing MI and WI in the primaries should have tipped her and her campaign off that there were issues they needed to address. That that was ignored and just assumed she'd win both states because they were the "fire wall" states shows a severe amount of arrogance.
 

Tripon

Member
Her losing MI and WI in the primaries should have tipped her and her campaign off that there were issues they needed to address. That that was ignored and just assumed she'd win both states because they were the "fire wall" states shows a severe amount of arrogance.
You still have to upkeep the firewall. That she didn't do the upkeep is what has a lot of people wondering why that was the game plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom