Support NeoGAF

[JackDT]

A 1% shift would have swung it massively. It's impossible for me to believe the FBI letters didn't have at least that much effect.

Not to mention the wikileaks hacked emails. I mean that was like hundreds and hundreds of news stories, every single day in the run weeks to the election. Just dominated coverage. It worked. Hack your opponents and trickle that shit out.

 

[PdotMichael]

Calling Sanders an elite liberal is sure something.

But yeah, it's totally about reasonable people getting together!

 

[noshten]

And lets make this crystal clear.. i am a fucking idiot and even i saw this coming.

Just to continue with this theme of being downplayed

18th August 2015

You know she's winning right

Besides your pretty terrible analysis of Hillary Clinton (and elections in general), this one example is particularly amusing.

unfortunately being a good candidate and having a chance of winning are two completely different things, never more pertinent then this election cycle on both sides of the aisle

Are you a heterosexual, college educated, white male? If so, you're the only demographic Bernie is winning. The average voter (on either side) doesn't give things like voting records and actions more than a cursory inspection -- mainly what they see/hear on the news, through a friend, etc. Mentally, we exaggerate to ourselves the level we (and other people) pay attention to these things because of inherent biases.

Women and minorities don't seem to be unable to relate to her, find her cold or untrustworthy.

Yeah, but, like... people do this she has some sort of X factor to win an election that has to be a bit broader than electability.

Her 51.6% approval rating over her Democratic challengers in the primary says something about her ability of her as a candidate. Her leads in Virginia, Iowa, Florida, and Pennsylvania show, at least at this point, people disagree with your assessment that she's somehow unelectable due to this traits that somehow people only care about because they don't trust Hillary Clinton. Her ability to weather Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Emailgate, Benghazi, and a host of other "scandals" along with Monica Lewinsky throughout her career show a tenacity that almost no other candidate would be able to weather.

So no, your original assessment that she "doesn't have what it takes" for X, Y, and Z reasons doesn't really hold up to data. At least not as of today. So it doesn't really prove your point because people don't really seem to give a shit.

I agree with Bernie slightly more than Hillary on the issues.

But I'm also convinced that, in these political circumstances, with Congressional gridlock very likely to continue well into the next administration, a Bernie presidency wouldn't look dramatically different from a Hillary presidency or a Biden presidency. We're not electing the President into a vacuum; we're putting him/her into a very specific political scenario, with very specific limitations on what policies are politically achievable.

Given this lack of strong difference, I look at probability to win the general election. And this "fake", this "joke" Hillary is still outperforming Bernie in general election matchups. If that should change such that Bernie begins to outperform Hillary in general election polling consistently, I won't hesitate to change preference in a heartbeat. Any of the major Democratic candidates will do fine policy-wise in this specific situation, so probability to win the general takes precedence in my mind - especially given how close elections have been in the post-Reagan era, where a swing of a few points can alter the outcome.

Seems pretty logical to me.

You can point to a few headliner issues where you don't trust Hillary, but those of us who have been observing her for a few decades know that she's been pretty damn consistently liberal. We can argue over likeability (you'll actually find in my history no shortage of comments noting that she's lacking in the charisma department), but the suggestion that she's anything but liberal is laughable, and it flies in the face of her overall record.

"hindsight"

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Calling Sanders an elite liberal is sure something.

But yeah, it's totally about reasonable people getting together!

I'm calling a number of his crazed supporters not him. I'm talking about the types so up their ass that they called him a sellout when he endorsed Clinton. The ones that would say shit like burn it down, Bernie or Bust, and literally only engaged in far left media. How can you guys not consider that being in a liberal thought bubble? Is it because some of you guys are those very people?!

 

[KingV]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're acting like the hate was purely one way. People who actually cared about the issues and weren't simply candidate stans would have been able to make amends

Yes I don't like people that say I am sexist because I don't support their milquetoast wooden candidate or deign to point out her flaws.

I also don't like how they were tearing down Bernie and his positions as unserious and then yelling Yaaas Queen when she tried to cosign watered down versions of those same policies as her own idea, while still shitting on Bernie and his supporters.

Then when it's all over, they're falling all over themselves to continue to trash "Bernie Bros".

Obama was like "oh, I'm going to make Hillary Secretary of State" and brought her fans along for the ride by including them, and picking Biden, a similar Democratic insider pick.

Hillary was like "I guess you can stump for me old boy, and your white devil supporters are free to vote for me, but I got my pro-life technocrat already picked, so take your commie shit back to Russia." Is it any wonder the progressive left just sat on their hands and let the Hillbots own it? It was clear as day that Hillary did not value our opinion, or even want it. I suspect at the end of the day she got most of the votes, but why are you going to be nice to someone that just spent 8 months calling you a racist, and is now smugly acting like they know better than you and are better than you? Hillary won, it's her job to mend fences. Bernie tried but frankly, the animosity was too strong. I was willing to vote for Hillary, and did but I damn sure wasn't excited about it because I knew she was a neoliberal in progressive Clothing. Hell just last week there were report about how she was negotiating with wall Street on a plan to mandate 401Ks and turn that money over to be managed, and profited off of, by private hedge funds.

Damn, now I have completely internalized why Trump won... And it was all Hillarys fault. As it turns out shaming your opponents voters is a shitty strategy.

 

[this_guy]

Not enough people went to check out Clinton's website like she asked them to.

Maybe the next candidate can tell voters why they should vote for him/her instead of directing voters to a website.

 

[lastflowers]

Oh yeah, because Bernie's base definitely wasn't also an "elite liberal thought bubble". Please. It's amazing people are claiming the primary season animosity didn't cause any issues when even way after the election there are still people split along Bernie vs Hillary, when by now we should be Reasonable people vs Republicans.

It's a return to the Dem party circa 1950s and John Kenneth Galbraith instead of the triangulating Identity politics of the 90s Clinton era. We call it different terms, mainly because many don't know the history of the party all too well--but it is what it is. The Clinton faction of the party will slowly rot since the constituents have failed to respond to their broken rhetoric and failed promises. It might take 8-12 years, but there'll be a return to this economic populist model.

 

[E92 M3]

A 1% shift would have swung it massively. It's impossible for me to believe the FBI letters didn't have at least that much effect.

Not to mention the wikileaks hacked emails. I mean that was like hundreds and hundreds of news stories, every single day in the run weeks to the election. Just dominated coverage. It worked. Hack your opponents and trickle that shit out.

Wikileaks didn't falsify anything, though, just showing what was there and it was up to the people to interpret it. Trump had a lot of filth dug up as well.

The blame falls solely on the Clinton campaign. Losers blame others and don't admit their own faults. Clinton and her supporters felt entitled to the Presidency and yet she did not "work" for it. She should have ran her campaign like Obama.

 

[PdotMichael]

I'm calling a number of his crazed supporters not him. I'm talking about the types so up their ass that they called him a sellout when he endorsed Clinton. The ones that would say shit like burn it down, Bernie or Bust, and literally only engaged in far left media. How can you guys not consider that being in a liberal thought bubble? Is it because some of you guys are those very people?!

No, you didn't. You called "Bernie's base" being part of an elite liberal bubble.

But moving the goalposts. reasonable poster.

 

[KingV]

double post.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Wasn't that Bernie?

Bernie Sanders is a liberal populist, but he wasn't a faux-anti-establishment pathological liar with a "catchy" slogan. He actually meant what he said when he went after the establishment elite during the primaries. He probably wouldn't have appointed nothing but establishment figureheads as his advisers and department heads, which is exactly what Trump seems to be doing. Sanders is not a liberal Trump, he's far better than that.

 

[qcf x2]

Deflection and lack of accountability actually fits the theme/tone of the campaign (at least from the perspective of non-supporters) and, of course, doesn't advance the notion that there would have been accountability in office had the campaign succeeded.

So many lessons to be learned, but they really need to do wholesale housecleaning; imagine the candidate 4 yrs from now being stuck with some, most or all of these messy, finger-pointing staff aides.

 

[LCGeek]

The DNC could have had a stronger candidate run for president if they actually held a fair primary process. People like Donna Brazille and possibly others were giving her inside and classified info to ensure victory. I would compare her primary win to Lance Armstrong at the tour de france. They both still had to race...but due to the unfair advantages each of them had, the outcome was all but certain from the starting line.

Maybe the DNC in the future shouldn't just try to give the nomination to who they feel is next in line and instead allow the people to decide in a fair primary process. They'll be rewarded by having the truly best democratic candidate to take on their opponent in the general election.

This and the media cheerleading ticked me off or dismissal of issues bernie was more than correct on. Maybe the media people giving 2 billion dollars worth of free advertising to trump maybe should own up to giving him so much political clout.

DNC not going with cronyism that's a new one on me.

 

[KingV]

Bernie Sanders is a liberal populist, but he wasn't a faux-anti-establishment pathological liar with a "catchy" slogan. He actually meant what he said when he went after the establishment elite during the primaries. He probably wouldn't have appointed nothing but establishment figureheads as his advisers and department heads, which is exactly what Trump seems to be doing. Sanders is not a liberal Trump, he's far better than that.

Im really curious how Trump will handle his cabinet. I sort of suspect crazy amounts of turnover until he gets complete yes men.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Some of you talk about unifying the party under 1 new banner, yet can't even admit that that was shit thrown from both sides. It's laughable and hypocritical. You guys can scour every pre-election thread out there and see I didn't engage in any of the super strict ONLY Hillary or ONLY Bernie talk that dominated.

I was a Clinton fan who was perfectly fine with either candidate (let's leave O'Malley's completely unelectable self out of it). I'm sure some of you had tons of shit from Clinton supporters, but pretending like it was wholly one side, and not budging an inch makes it hard to interpret as anything but persecution fueled by angry "I told you so!"

The facts are:
1. The DNC did strongly push Clinton. No one is denying that. However, with the margin she won the nomination by it's disingenuous to discredit the ability to think of make conclusions by the millions who chose her. It'd be one thing if the vote count didn't match the superdelegate count, but it did, so get over it.

2. There were a variety of factors that contributed to her loss. The strongest were her and her campaign. While they could have had a win, without all the late game shit with the email investigation "re-opening" and the leaked emails (given that the margins in places she lost were 1-2%), the fact that it was that close, combined with the massive decrease in turnout, means she probably wasn't the right candidate at this time. Was Bernie? Who knows. None of us have a crystal ball. None of us can predict how he'd do overall. We can only extrapolate from the primary season that he probably would have gotten some of the rust belt states, but also probably wouldn't have done as well with minorities. Again, this is pure extrapolation.

3. Like I said, mudslinging was on both sides. I've said where it came from, and if you're too stuck in the bubble because you're still bitter over the shit you got from Clinton people to admit to it, then there really isn't any more I can argue with you.You're clearly not interested in engaging in any meaningful introspection and only care about pointing fingers.

I've said my share. I feel I've been fairly honest all around. That's all I can do

 

[Father_Brain]

Oh yeah, because Bernie's base definitely wasn't also an "elite liberal thought bubble". Please. It's amazing people are claiming the primary season animosity didn't cause any issues when even way after the election there are still people split along Bernie vs Hillary, when by now we should be Reasonable people vs Republicans.

Oh, please. The atmosphere here was incredibly and overwhelmingly hostile to any criticism of Hillary, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with Bernie.

 

[PdotMichael]

Remember when GAF sourced some random posts on Reddit for their hate against Bernie and his supporters?

One couldn't go more boogeyman than this.

 

[tbm24]

Oh, please. The atmosphere here was incredibly and overwhelmingly hostile to any criticism of Hillary, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with Bernie.

I think it's fair to say that hostility existed on both sides and their respective social hangouts. I saw it here, I saw it on reddit, I saw it with many people in my life, many of whom I've lost desire to engage with anymore.

It was an ugly primary season all around and none of us are better for it.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

there was shit-flinging from both sides

hopefully we can all admit liberals turned on each other, and appear to continue doing so

 

[Chariot]

Some of you talk about unifying the party under 1 new banner, yet can't even admit that that was shit thrown from both sides. It's laughable and hypocritical. You guys can scour every pre-election thread out there and see I didn't engage in any of the super strict ONLY Hillary or ONLY Bernie talk that dominated.

I was a Clinton fan who was perfectly fine with either candidate (let's leave O'Malley's completely unelectable self out of it). I'm sure some of you had tons of shit from Clinton supporters, but pretending like it was wholly one side, and not budging an inch makes it hard to interpret as anything but persecution fueled by angry "I told you so!"

The facts are:
1. The DNC did strongly push Clinton. No one is denying that. However, with the margin she won the nomination by it's disingenuous to discredit the ability to think of make conclusions by the millions who chose her. It'd be one thing if the vote count didn't match the superdelegate count, but it did, so get over it.

2. There were a variety of factors that contributed to her loss. The strongest were her and her campaign. While they could have had a win, without all the late game shit with the email investigation "re-opening" and the leaked emails (given that the margins in places she lost were 1-2%), the fact that it was that close, combined with the massive decrease in turnout, means she probably wasn't the right candidate at this time. Was Bernie? Who knows. None of us have a crystal ball. None of us can predict how he'd do overall. We can only extrapolate from the primary season that he probably would have gotten some of the rust belt states, but also probably wouldn't have done as well with minorities. Again, this is pure extrapolation.

3. Like I said, mudslinging was on both sides. I've said where it came from, and if you're too stuck in the bubble because you're still bitter over the shit you got from Clinton people to admit to it, then there really isn't any more I can argue with you.You're clearly not interested in engaging in any meaningful introspection and only care about pointing fingers.

I've said my share. I feel I've been fairly honest all around. That's all I can do

There were good and bad people on both sides. That much is true.

However, you shouldn't stop thinking there. The stronger group and the group of the person that won should've taken the high road. I went around trying to get people to stop going on Bernie supporters. What I got was this and this. People telling me that they don't need to walk with Bernie supporters, that we weren't needed. Other people telling me that it's fine to bash Bernie supporters because they will have forgot when general comes around. It was the time to stand together, to not generalize Bernie supporters and other non-Clinton supporters, time to pull them in, to excite them. Instead we were made the excitement.

 

[KingV]

Some of you talk about unifying the party under 1 new banner, yet can't even admit that that was shit thrown from both sides. It's laughable and hypocritical. You guys can scour every pre-election thread out there and see I didn't engage in any of the super strict ONLY Hillary or ONLY Bernie talk that dominated.

I was a Clinton fan who was perfectly fine with either candidate (let's leave O'Malley's completely unelectable self out of it). I'm sure some of you had tons of shit from Clinton supporters, but pretending like it was wholly one side, and not budging an inch makes it hard to interpret as anything but persecution fueled by angry "I told you so!"

The facts are:
1. The DNC did strongly push Clinton. No one is denying that. However, with the margin she won the nomination by it's disingenuous to discredit the ability to think of make conclusions by the millions who chose her. It'd be one thing if the vote count didn't match the superdelegate count, but it did, so get over it.

2. There were a variety of factors that contributed to her loss. The strongest were her and her campaign. While they could have had a win, without all the late game shit with the email investigation "re-opening" and the leaked emails (given that the margins in places she lost were 1-2%), the fact that it was that close, combined with the massive decrease in turnout, means she probably wasn't the right candidate at this time. Was Bernie? Who knows. None of us have a crystal ball. None of us can predict how he'd do overall. We can only extrapolate from the primary season that he probably would have gotten some of the rust belt states, but also probably wouldn't have done as well with minorities. Again, this is pure extrapolation.

3. Like I said, mudslinging was on both sides. I've said where it came from, and if you're too stuck in the bubble because you're still bitter over the shit you got from Clinton people to admit to it, then there really isn't any more I can argue with you.You're clearly not interested in engaging in any meaningful introspection and only care about pointing fingers.

I've said my share. I feel I've been fairly honest all around. That's all I can do

Yes there was mud slinging from both sides but only one side were sore winners. We expect some of the losing side to be put out, but you also expect the winning side to be somewhat conciliatory. But when the winning side is not conciliatory, and smug as shit, but then butt fumbles the election you get this.

We were never in this together, really, because Clinton and her supporters thought it was their moment, and their moment only.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Kick out every possible Clinton top level supporter/staffer please. They are not getting it. Other democrats are, but not them. So nuke them.

Other democrats getting this is very promising. But get rid of all of the Clinton affiliates.

 

[Chumley]

Oh, please. The atmosphere here was incredibly and overwhelmingly hostile to any criticism of Hillary, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with Bernie.

This is one case where "both sides" is actually applicable. Both sides flung shit. If we don't get over it we'll never get anywhere.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think it's fair to say that hostility existed on both sides and their respective social hangouts. I saw it here, I saw it on reddit, I saw it with many people in my life, many of whom I've lost desire to engage with anymore.

It was an ugly primary season all around and none of us are better for it.

True, but as someone who pretty much viewed this election as a passerby until Trump won (partly because I was fighting Brexit when American election stuff was going on) which caused me to lose my shit, Hillary-GAF mania was most certainly a massive issue.

I pretty much said some stuff about supporting Bernie, then when Hillary got it resided to one or two remarks of "lol Trump" and "Hillary has got this", and that was it. Very few times did I mention some stuff I didn't like about Hillary but when I did I felt forced out of "fear" to put some massive "disclaimer I don't support Trump!" message precisely because of watching so much dogpiling going on for anyone who said 1 thing about Clinton.

Now it's obviously open season, but you're defintely seeing built up tension spill out these last few days from Bernie fans and even just Hillary critics (but not Trump supporters, actual Democrats) who've kept their mouths shut. It was what it was, and now that we're all fucked as Trump won it's best just to reflect, but try and move on (move on from any disapproval of GAF and Hillary, I don't mean move on from Trump winning). There's no point lingering too much on YAS QUEEN fandom, she lost, and now Democrats need to work together to sort their ship out and get it back into pole position.

 

[teruterubozu]

It was both sides but the Hillary supporters pretty much flat out said "we don't need you to win this thing" which was kind of the last word on it.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Not enough people went to check out Clinton's website like she asked them to.

Maybe the next candidate can tell voters why they should vote for him/her instead of directing voters to a website.

This is very true. Liberals in particular are sometimes quick to call American's dumb because they don't look at every political position that a candidate has. Yes, it obviously would be great if they would but we know that's not the case. It's not some huge surprise to anyone. That's why it's important to be able to condense your message down to something where people can easily understand how you feel the current direction of the country. Earlier in the thread people were discussing slogans, and that's a perfect way to do that. Look at Obama and Trump's slogans. Change We Can Believe In and Make America Great Again. Right away if you're struggling in the country you know both of those candidates are looking to change things. What does Stronger Together tell you about Hillary's position on the country? Stronger Together in the same direction? Stronger Together in another direction? It's a hollow slogan.

The moment you have to tell people to go to this website or that website and read something, your message is already fucked. People aren't going to do that. You've got to be able to package whatever you want to tell them and make it easily digestible.

 

[MIMIC]

CNN is saying that Podesta blames the media for being "too hostile" to Hillary.

Talk about being out of touch. My God

 

[Chumley]

It was both sides but the Hillary supporters pretty much flat out said "we don't need you to win this thing" which was kind of the last word on it.

The most extreme of them, sure. Just like the most extreme on the other side said they refuse to support Clinton no matter what. The fringe sides can't find any middle ground, luckily most of them did. She still got something like 80% of the Sanders vote.

CNN is saying that Podesta blames the media for being "too hostile" to Hillary.

Talk about being out of touch. My God

Tell me how he's wrong. Go ahead and try.

 

[PdotMichael]

You can't move together to the next topic, when the Clinton side basically wasn't interested in working with the "Bernie Bros" together in important questions.

There are fundamental concepts running how the Democratic Party should operate.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

It was both sides but the Hillary supporters pretty much flat out said "we don't need you to win this thing" which was kind of the last word on it.

also true

the dismissal that bernie supporters were not important did damage to any motivation or energy

 

[ColdPizza]

Tell me how he's wrong. Go ahead and try.

Sounds like your mind is already made up the way you just phrased this.

 

[MIMIC]

Tell me how he's wrong. Go ahead and try.

As opposed to Trump? He had been basically been condemned by every corner of the media!

 

[Vestal]

CNN is saying that Podesta blames the media for being "too hostile" to Hillary.

Talk about being out of touch. My God

Umm....

October 28th -> November 6th disagrees with your statement.

It is one of the reasons, but not the only one.

 

[Flying Toaster]

The most extreme of them, sure. Just like the most extreme on the other side said they refuse to support Clinton no matter what. The fringe sides can't find any middle ground, luckily most of them did. She still got something like 80% of the Sanders vote.



Tell me how he's wrong. Go ahead and try.

If you are seriously going this route I think you have missed everything that has been happening since last December.

 

[Deku Tree]

The exit polls provide some clarity: A significant chunk of Obama voters flipped to Trump. Trump won 10 percent of voters who approve of Obama’s presidency and 23 percent of voters who think the next president should “be more liberal,” according to CNN data. Trump significantly outperformed Romney among union households. He did 14 points better than Romney among whites without a college degree, according to The New York Times, and 16 points better among households with less than $30,000 in income. The Trump Democrat turns out not to be a myth, but a meaningful constituency that just cost Clinton the presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-party-future_us_5824caf6e4b0c56101d5ec05

How about the Trump Democrats? Why not talk about how the Dems lost them?

 

[Vestal]

As opposed to Trump? He had been basically been condemned by every corner of the media!

No he was normalized. They put pundits up there actually defending his bullshit. No Journalistic integrity what so fucking ever. They spent 45min of every hour for over a year covering his every move, and normalized his behavior as you know just another candidate. Then as soon as Clinton had 1 little thing pop up they blew it up to the size of 20 Suns, just so you know "both sides are the same" "Balanced coverage"

 

[Flying Toaster]

Umm....

October 28th -> November 6th disagrees with your statement.

It is one of the reasons, but not the only one.

If that small time frame is all that it took to lose the election there was a bigger issue than just the FBI being freaking idiots.

 

[tbm24]

It was both sides but the Hillary supporters pretty much flat out said "we don't need you to win this thing" which was kind of the last word on it.

I lump that together with many of the Bernie supporters I know who threw in the towel once she got the nomination. I fought and argued with them till the very end to throw their vote her way if they really cared about anything Bernie stood for. In the end I failed to get someone to walk 2 literal blocks from their home to their local voting location. Part of me can see why others with less patience would give up and say that, not that it's right but here we are.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

we shouldn't trust tv news anyway

all of the big stories I believe came from non-tv places, I think. Read that in a tweet somewhere yesterday, could be wrong.

 

[ColdPizza]

No he was normalized. They put pundits up there actually defending his bullshit. No Journalistic integrity what so fucking ever. They spent 45min of every hour for over a year covering his every move, and normalized his behavior as you know just another candidate. Then as soon as Clinton had 1 little thing pop up they blew it up to the size of 20 Suns, just so you know "both sides are the same" "Balanced coverage"

Man, we must watch and read different stuff.

The righteous indignation coming out of the major news outlets was off the charts. I got the sense instead of trying to report the news, they were trying to influence it.

 

[Vestal]

If that small time frame is all that it took to lose the election there was a bigger issue than just the FBI being freaking idiots.

That's not all it took, but it was one of the factors. This election should have never been close. A combination of multiple factors resulted in this outcome. You can't pin it on one single thing.

 

[inner-G]

Maybe the next candidate can tell voters why they should vote for him/her instead of directing voters to a website.

It was like the political version of the FF IX strategy guide

 

[Flying Toaster]

That's not all it took, but it was one of the factors. This election should have never been close. A combination of multiple factors resulted in this outcome. You can't pin it on one single thing.

I agree.

The entire situation is nothing but minor variables that if singled out amount to nothing but if you add it all up it is a giant mess.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

That's not all it took, but it was one of the factors. This election should have never been close. A combination of multiple factors resulted in this outcome. You can't pin it on one single thing.

yes I believe people are trying to find the big one, the head of the issues

Don't know if there is one; smarter minds know and I can try to figure out, I guess

 

[Vestal]

Man, we must watch and read different stuff.

The righteous indignation coming out of the major news outlets was off the charts. I got the sense instead of trying to report the news, they were trying to influence it.

It is the medias job to inform the public. To report the facts. They should have been reporting every day the fact that this man was lying to their faces at every single fucking rally.

 

[The Shadow]

Not enough people went to check out Clinton's website like she asked them to.

Maybe the next candidate can tell voters why they should vote for him/her instead of directing voters to a website.

The moment you have to tell people to go to this website or that website and read something, your message is already fucked. People aren't going to do that. You've got to be able to package whatever you want to tell them and make it easily digestible.

Both are correct.

Here's the deal. If you're telling people to go "read up" on your policies, you're telling them you don't have the time to answer their questions or concerns. It's so dismissive, not unlike her entire campaign.

But here's another thought. Growing up and living in a pretty poor state, I know a lot of people in rural areas have shit internet access, much less computers of their own. I know, shocking to us city slickers with our Macbooks and broadband, but absolutely true. When you're telling a demographic to look shit up on something that they perceive as only "elites" having, that they have to go to a public library to use, it just shows how ignorant and dismissive you are to that demographic.

As opposed to Trump? He had been basically been condemned by every corner of the media!

He was treated like a joke. Anderson Cooper and others outright argued with his proxies. To have the attitude of "Poor, poor Hillary" over the media is a bit laughable.

 

[tbm24]

As opposed to Trump? He had been basically been condemned by every corner of the media!

I had the fortune(or misfortune depending on how you consume mainstream media) of having CNN on behind my head for the entirety of 2016, 5 days a week. To pretend Trump was condemned by them even a little bit is laughable. He went unchallenged pretty much anywhere. You can tell the media recognized when Trump would say something offensive or flat out false but he was never taken to task.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

As opposed to Trump? He had been basically been condemned by every corner of the media!

That was the key faulty thinking people made. Think about it, when it came near election time and you heard there was more shit possibly on Trump, did your opinion of him change at all? We were so oversaturated with news of his scandals that we became desensitized to them and they became the norm for him. The media actually contributed to this, choosing to sensationalize it and turn into tabloids rather than doing their due diligence with strong condemnation of it. Compare how a sexual assault is reported on the evening news vs a celebrity scandal and you'll see how difference in tone can drastically alter perception.

24 hour news continues to be a mistake

 

[Boney]

em.... eh? Sanders got his first big national spotlight during the 2008 bailout, railing against the big banks on CSPAN. millions heard about this and tuned in to watch him do this live on the floor of the senate. it was a viral, authentic display of a politician actually making a stand.

this is the definition of railing against the liberal thought bubble. contrast this to Hillary explaining how she would fight poverty by writing a NYTimes op-ed piece.

Listening to him tear Alan Greenspan apart is so wonderful

That was the key faulty thinking people made. Think about it, when it came near election time and you heard there was more shit possibly on Trump, did you opinion him change at all? We were so oversaturated with news of his scandals that we became desensitized to them and they became the norm for him. The media actually contributed to this, choosing to sensationalize it and turn into tabloids rather than doing their due diligence with strong condemnation of it. Compare how a sexual assault is reported on the evening news vs a celebrity scandal and you'll see how difference in ton can drastically alter perception.

24 hour news continues to be a mistake

And Clinton ran along with the yellow journalism as her ticket to win.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

the media made the email scandal worse than it appeared

she fucked up, but at a certain point you have to tell people "it isn't that big a deal please don't treat this like Watergate."