It was a lot like Romney's 47% moment. Insulting the voter base is never a good idea.
-
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.
Study: Hillary Clinton's ads were almost entirely policy free.
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Status
It was a lot like Romney's 47% moment. Insulting the voter base is never a good idea.
Unknown Soldier
Member
What's interesting now, in hindsight, is that Bernie never really had a chance in the Southern states which anchored Hillary's primary victory simply because of the Clinton name. Bill was very popular in the South, I mean Toni Morrison famously referred to him as "the first Black President" and he embodied a lot of what the Southern experience represented in the eyes of Southerners.
We now know that the much-touted Hillary victory margins in the South, which were twisted by a very unpleasant minority of posters here on this forum into accusations that Bernie was a racist and his supporters were all white racists, were basically illusions because of the Clinton branding and in the end the South went Republican as it always does in the general. So I don't really know what else Bernie could have done to change the way events played out, in the end he was basically running against Bill Clinton in the South and no one can touch Bill there.
There's nothing unusual about the conversation we're having here. It's how political discourse used to be back in the day. 
She couldn't even answer whether or not she tells the truth to the American public without messing it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0H1AosZdv0 And for some goddamn reason she joked about Bobby Kennedy's assassination when asked why she was still running vs Obama not too long ago. Saying she's a rookie here is putting it lightly.
Hillary goofed like Dan Quayle while having corrupt charisma akin to Dick Cheney, and learned nothing from Obama's work ethic as she made another series of rookie blunders in skipping WI, flying home each night (although the rookie Trump did this as well but he still outworked Hillary on the trail), and having half the battleground offices that Obama led.
Hillary & Co. did all those years of prep work only to coast to defeat, but to be fair she should never have been allowed to run in the first place considering the FBI investigation and alltime deplorable poll ratings.
It wasn't just the Clinton name. Populist movements have been making minorities uncomfortable for generations- it wasn't an accident that Bernie was having trouble in the demographic (especially in the south) w/ a message based primarily on economics.
This is from Goodwyn's "The Populist Movement", about the movement in the late 1800s, but it still holds true today. Especially that part at the bottom after the highlighted section. Trump/Sanders were both running populist campaigns, and had only white people voted, Sanders would have barely edged out Clinton.
This is from Goodwyn's "The Populist Movement", about the movement in the late 1800s, but it still holds true today. Especially that part at the bottom after the highlighted section. Trump/Sanders were both running populist campaigns, and had only white people voted, Sanders would have barely edged out Clinton.
The Dem presidential candidate was going to lose the south in the general election no matter what. That doesn't mean that Bernie shouldn't have made an effort. Even he said that he lost big in the south because they are the most conservative STATES and that they are unimportant to the Dem coalition as far as the electoral college is concerned.
Dude said, in his own words, that he didn't care how southern Democrats, progressives, liberals, or socialists voted because they lived in states that the Dems couldn't win.
Regardless of how strong the Clinton name was, he gave off an air of indifference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/opinion/sanders-dismissesthe-deep-south.html
EatinOlives
Member
You would think that, this is America. You actively need to convince people to NOT vote for a raging racist.
Dude Abides
Banned
What's interesting now, in hindsight, is that Bernie never really had a chance in the Southern states which anchored Hillary's primary victory simply because of the Clinton name. Bill was very popular in the South, I mean Toni Morrison famously referred to him as "the first Black President" and he embodied a lot of what the Southern experience represented in the eyes of Southerners.
We now know that the much-touted Hillary victory margins in the South, which were twisted by a very unpleasant minority of posters here on this forum into accusations that Bernie was a racist and his supporters were all white racists, were basically illusions because of the Clinton branding and in the end the South went Republican as it always does in the general. So I don't really know what else Bernie could have done to change the way events played out, in the end he was basically running against Bill Clinton in the South and no one can touch Bill there.
There's nothing unusual about the conversation we're having here. It's how political discourse used to be back in the day.
So basically those dumb southern blacks get fooled by name branding but savvy white college students know better. Such a mystery why minorities give BernieBros sideye.
jack_package_200
Banned
Yep, a lot of people who vote in democratic primaries in the south, mainly minorities, took offense to it.
It was tone deaf at best.
I don't think Clinton's mistake was calling them out. Trump sat there and insulted nearly every base voting for him.
Issue was, she never went all in. It was a school yard fight and the best you could do was deplorable? When you have Trump on tape talking about molesting women, people beneath, etc. She acted like such a damn lifeless politician. She should have just called him a cunt, a jackass, piece of shit, something. The issue was not insult Trump's base, but getting people out to fucking vote for you.
He's not wrong. Clinton focused on the South, ignored the Midwest. We lost.
Issue was, she never went all in. It was a school yard fight and the best you could do was deplorable? When you have Trump on tape talking about molesting women, people beneath, etc. She acted like such a damn lifeless politician. She should have just called him a cunt, a jackass, piece of shit, something. The issue was not insult Trump's base, but getting people out to fucking vote for you.
He's not wrong. Clinton focused on the South, ignored the Midwest. We lost.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
We live in a country where people wont stop eating a chicken sandwich if it meant to show solidarity with their fellow citizens and you are expecting people to rise up and vote? People need a reason to vote for, not something to vote against. This was a lesson taught in 2004.
He is wrong. They're very important states to the people living there because their vote in the D primary is the only time their votes will matter on the national stage. While their state may go for the GOP candidate automatically, this allows them a voice in the outcome.
If your message here is that America is mostly okay with white supremacy and people of color should just not expect to live in safety in America as it currently exists, I already got that one, thanks.
So how can you help them, now that D's have lost the Senate, House, President, and soon to be SC? The scary thing is, there is a good chance we're losing more seats in the Midwest in 2018. They in that, it's another 10 years. The focus on the South lost the election.
It's cold and human-less, but nothing can be done without winning in 2018 and 2020.
We're not losing seats in the house in 2018 barring some sort of crazy event like 9/11. The senate map is rough because 2012 was a good year. (It's a good problem to have.) Trump's approval rating isn't going to recover because he's incapable of doing the things necessary to do so.
US politics is reactionary. Once you've lived long enough you'll see the sine curve.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This doesn't make any sense, unless the down portion of the "sine curve" has been in effect since 1980 for the Democrats.
The Republicans have more power in the country than they have since 1929. Dismissing that as some kind of "sine curve" is a potentially fatal mistake which implies there is nothing wrong with the Democrats or the strategy they employed in 2016 when all the evidence is to the contrary.
Actually, let's just remove potentially from the previous sentence.
Look at who controls the presidency and look at what happens to the makeup of the legislature once the party in control of the presidency switches hands.
It's always the same pattern. (Pres/Congress) R/R-> R/D->D/D->D/R->R/R
The issues in '10+ at the state/local level were exacerbated by the OFA/DNC crap and abandoning 50-state.
Just like with the Hulk, the trick to the US electorate is that they're always angry.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
The message is that if people dont have a reason to vote for something they arent going to vote.
edit:
and before someone says you are just stating the obvious or that it doesnt matter, look at what this thread is about. In TV ads the Clinton campaign attached Trumps character almost exclusively instead of talking policy about what made them better. You cannot win by going "we arent them."
cheezcake
Member
Bernie and Hillary almost tied in non-white voters aged 18-44. Bernie won black and hispanic voters aged 18-29. Bernie lost both non-white and white voters aged 45+ to Hillary. The racial divide exists but its grossly overstated vs the much more accurate generational divide.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/06/07/age-and-race-democratic-primary/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/huge-split-between-older-younger-blacks-democratic-primary-n580996
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/28/472160616/-berniemademewhite-no-bernie-sanders-isnt-just-winning-with-white-people
"White supremacy is evil and we need to stop it" is a thing to vote for. Unless you think white supremacy is fine.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Unfortunately that's not a realistic expectation in America. The majority of white Americans are indifferent toward white supremacy if not ok with it because there aren't really any minuses for them.
The elections results and the majority of posts in this thread bear out the idea that the next Dem candidate is going to have to make white voters feel good about themselves to have a chance
Like I said. People of color can't ever live in peace in America as it currently exists.
PdotMichael
Banned
Weren't black Americans not the largest shrinking demographics in the last election? It's great to post stuff like white supremacy in the internet but for many people is it a too abstract concept.
Political messages and goals should be broken down to more simple and practical statements.
Political messages and goals should be broken down to more simple and practical statements.
"Nazis are bad" seems very simple and practical to me.
I think people just need to stop dancing around the fact that they believe a large number of white people in America are fine with white supremacy and that they want their political party to accept those people so that they can win elections!
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Yeah its sick. People dont care about things when it doesnt affect them. Couple this with the huge racism problem in America and multiply it by how shit things are out here economically and im kind of surprised more didnt actually show up for Trump.
lastflowers
Banned
You're basically outing your own presumptions, which hilariously I would state is the basIf premise in a list of the Clinton group's argument towards the previous campaign. Assuming foundation without actually investigating the population
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Speaking of which, was that a neogaf thing for using that with Hillary, with potential links to adam, or a larger hillary thing altogether?
I never could tell.
lastflowers
Banned
If criticism of Hillary is seen purely as sexism and homophobia from these members, I'm purely going to ignore. Kirblar has been a poster increasingly divested from interaction this past year such that it's probably not worth pursuing further. S/he in particular has shown an explicit refusal of Op-eds from scholars on public political development (Fukuyama) la
lastflowers
Banned
Dp
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
OK? Still doesn't really answer my question.
I deeply disagree with about half of Kirblar's opinions, but they don't seem like they're coming from that bad of a place to me.
Vicetrailia
Member
Democrats have to stick for the something for everyone, otherwise there's no point.
lastflowers
Banned
It's more that s/he often ignores the actual opinion of constituents s/he claims to represent with authority, instead revealing a tenuous grasp of the actual arguments made elsewhere. I tend to not discuss generalized situations with others that don't attempt to seek information beyond confirmation bias. Poligaf's moderated discourse over the past year was one of the more disappointing aspects of my adult life (5 years). That's not understatement, as I honestly don't expect much from my physical life.
SolidSnakex
Member
Oh, it definitely extended far outside of this forum. Hillary's own campaign adopted a variation of it and merchandised it
And while not official, these also existed
PdotMichael
Banned
4 years ago people voted for Obama. At some point it gets silly.
Also doesn't explain Clinton's subpar results with minorities.
There it is! Let's absolve them of their support for white supremacy because they once voted for a black guy who assured them they weren't racist!
Thanks for your solidarity!
badcrumble
Member
indeed, the Democrats shouldn't have run any ads at all
PdotMichael
Banned
Yeah, not giving up on the Midwest and trying to get the handful tenthousands voters in key states is basically capitulating to racism and white supremacy.
That you also ignore how many minority voters couldn't get motivated to vote for Clinton is telling.
kame-sennin
Member
It was interesting to watch the 'Sanders doesn't care abut the black vote' myth develop. It started when #blm activists (hilariously) crashed a few of his speeches and some of his racist-ass supporters flipped out on black people, white-splaining about how they were hurting their own cause. But Bernie Sanders is not his supporters, and there are a shit ton of liberal racists in the D party (see: Super Predators defense force).
What's interesting about this whole lie is that Bernie actually responded really well to being punked by women of color. He obviously didn't love it, but he showed more deference and respect than most politicians would. And he acknowledged his flaws and altered his platform. Ironically, Clinton was nowhere near as gracious. But once the myth was built, it was built.
Hilary Clinton was not going to put an end to white supremacy. She was going to reform it and make it more palatable. But the American economy runs on the oppression of black (and brown) people. That's the nature of capitalism in the U.S. Bernie wouldn't have changed that either.
Obviously reformist white supremacy is better than expansionist white supremacy, which we have in Trump. But a small part of me is consoled by the fact that Trump has slapped the apathy out of some leftists and liberals. Resistance is our only hope.
This argument makes no sense? I don't think I said we shouldn't try to compete. I said stop arguing that people who voted for a white supremacist don't bear the moral responsibility for having done so.
I don't ignore that. I think Hillary made a lot of mistakes and wasn't the right candidate for the new Democratic coalition. To be honest, this is a comforting analysis, because it means we can win without having to change really anything. Next time around everybody won't clear the field because they believe Hillary would be a great president (which she would, it's just the winning part she was bad at) and we won't be stuck with a slate of incompetent has-beens to run for the highest office in the land.
I just find it incredibly tiring how much people want to forgive the people who actually voted for Trump. Your absolution and condoning of white supremacy is how they got radicalized in the first place.
jakonovski
Member
I gotta say, it's kinda preposterous that the people whose strategic outlook lost America the election are now back telling us how it really is.
Like, why should anyone trust you not to fuck it up again?
Like, why should anyone trust you not to fuck it up again?
PdotMichael
Banned
Giving people no other options will further radicalize them while you are stuck on your high horse.
Your attitude gives you maybe likes in your internet echo chamber but it will destroy any liberal movement in the USA.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
The yass queen thing was particularly annoying and stupid because there was already a perception of Clinton being a dynastic, born in the purple, right to rule type.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
"One shouldn't have a reason to not vote white supremacist" ignores the distorted reality people are exposed to. The externalization of white supremacy is seen as agressively crossing any people of color and voicing discontent towards immigration or "black thugs" as trump does is rationalized as American not racist. They are obviously deluded but I wish it was as simple as sayin racism is bad.
Sanders campaign, as a grassroots campaign, picked up momentum and resources in the latter half of the campaign. If they had the resources they would've campaigned harder on those states. It was an insurgent candidacy built on the back of denouncing citizen's United so it not having a winning strategy isn't that big a deal.
Name recognition is also highly impactful on voting patterns and has nothing to do with "them ignorant black people should know better". It also explains why older age brackets voted predominately Clinton, since Sanders by being an almost exclusive Internet phenomenon with almost zero tv participation was unable to overcome his challenger status. The Clinton brand has been popular with black voters, even when taking into account Bill's flip flopping and destructive policies. Low information voters are more likely to persist during primaries than general as well, where viability is seen as an important strategic factor behind the vote.
https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Kam04282011/Kam04282011.pdf
Sanders campaign, as a grassroots campaign, picked up momentum and resources in the latter half of the campaign. If they had the resources they would've campaigned harder on those states. It was an insurgent candidacy built on the back of denouncing citizen's United so it not having a winning strategy isn't that big a deal.
Name recognition is also highly impactful on voting patterns and has nothing to do with "them ignorant black people should know better". It also explains why older age brackets voted predominately Clinton, since Sanders by being an almost exclusive Internet phenomenon with almost zero tv participation was unable to overcome his challenger status. The Clinton brand has been popular with black voters, even when taking into account Bill's flip flopping and destructive policies. Low information voters are more likely to persist during primaries than general as well, where viability is seen as an important strategic factor behind the vote.
https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Kam04282011/Kam04282011.pdf
Also thing I want to point out is that the "southern states are not important" is the exact type of contextually deprived political attacks. When asked about if Sanders should quit coming out of Super Tuesday (which are meant to spread candidates thin and reward bigger budgets) he answered how those states are composed differently from bluer states and that they are not representative.
Iwannaseethereciepts.gif
And that didn't mix well with months of Bernie supporters thinking (still apparently) black voters need a policy education so they can break free of the Clinton trance.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
It seems to follow the same trend as US advertising, which is quite happy to insult and compare products favourably with the competition. You just don't tend to get that in the UK.
El_Tiguere
Member
Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? You can't run the same spineless establishment Corporate Democrat crew and expect different results. If we want to move past the 2016 election, THIS is what we all need to fix:
Democrat Party:
People DO NOT LIKE the Democrat party, and it wasn't just Hillary's and her campaign's shortsightedness of the pain Americans are feeling. It took an "outsider" (Bernie) to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America, It took an outsider to the right wing to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America (a horrible direction).
What appeals to rural white voters? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to black voters and hispanics? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to the middle class? jobs and prosperity. What has been lacking for the bottom 90% of Americans outside of wealthy coastal metros? jobs and prosperity. Who are Americans blaming for the lack of jobs and prosperity? the defunct DC parties who have mostly pandered to the top 10% (mostly to the top 1%).
Trump's version of jobs and prosperity is xenophobic nationalistic isolationism. Bernie's version of jobs and prosperity is to restore balance between the oligarchs who own our government, and the workers at the bottom. Clinton's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Schumer's and Pelosi's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Corporate Democrats like Obama's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy.
If we acknowledge that the Democrat brand is tainted by corruption at this point (because wealth/income inequality is the increasingly crushing daily experience of the majority of Americans), we need to re-brand the party. Progressives are the ones with the ground support right now, while centrist corporate Democrats are the ones with the support of the oligarchs. The oligarchs had their wish in 2016 with Clinton, and we LOST. The corporate Democrats need to increasingly step aside for fresh blood, and that fresh blood is progressive. We need an FDR, not a Bill Clinton. We need a JFK, not a docile corporate puppet like Obama who talks a good game, but turns around and hands favors to the donor class and the neocons.
Good post. I agree with everything you said. At the top the Dem and Rep parties are basically the same- they both pander to the wealthy who pay for they're campaigns and pay for them to stay in power. But the Reps can still generate low/mid class voter turnout by utilizing the aging demographic who don't want change, the religious zealots, and the uneducated masses who can easily be tricked. The Democrats don't have that advantage, when people see through the lies they have nothing left to turn back to. They need a serious reform to get back to being the peoples party.
PdotMichael
Banned
Dems won the popular vote with a pretty big margin.
Trump was lucky that the Democrats ignored the important key states for the well-known but stupid reasons.
That's the important point here. Dems don't need to pander to racists yadda yadda... you guys know the purity nonsense but just a better strategy (or just not ignoring those people) for the Midwest would have been enough.
- Status