Support NeoGAF

[ColourRevolt]

I'm having difficulty deciding whether I want to vote for Hillary or Trump. They're both such EXCELLENT choices. Oh well, whoever takes office, I know either way I'll be happy. God, I love knowing that the American people don't actually have to work together and can simply pass on their problems to someone more responsible who can fix them for us. So thrilled to see what the next four years brings!

 

[Aaronology]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

I've only given this thread a glance, and can't really dip into the larger conversation that's going on right now. That said, this comment gets under my skin a little. "The Establishment Picked Her!" is a fantasy based sentiment I've seen come from some of the most out of touch people this election cycle. Hillary wasn't forced on America, DpadD. She was not "chosen" by the "elites." Millions of people voted for her in a Primary that she handedly won by being a better and more palatable candidate than her opposition.

No one is asking you to "get in line" here, and frankly if you see voting for this particular Democratic ticket as some onerous task I think you have bigger problems than your dislike for Clinton.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Well yeah it looks shitty but only because Trump is poor. I read somewhere before the primaries that the Koch Brothers were willing to spend $1b on the GOP candidate. Then you have people like Sheldon Adelson who can spend $100 million easily on an election. Obama and Romney both raised a ridiculous amount of money in 2012. I don't know why people are acting surprised, this is how it has always been for many decades. Yes, Hillary is a big hypocrite but if she can overturn the Citizens United ruling as she promised then it's all good.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

She doesn't need the money, though. You're acting as though this is some close race.

I'm getting real sick of people not taking Trump's chances seriously.

 

[ChouGoku]

I wonder if this was another country and one of the potential leaders was spending a ton of time with rich and powerful people would people still be saying I see nothing wrong here

 

[Armaros]

Sure but she's not exactly Sue Storm either. The idea that America was "wondering where she was!" is total nonsense.

And when she is in the wide public, people only want to talk emails and the Foundation. And people wonder why she is sticking to local politics and news.

 

[johnsmith]

Hadn't heard from the Bernie crowd for a while, sad to see they're still around.

Anybody criticizing her for this is just ignorant of how our political system works. Everything. Every single aspect of it. Sanders was never going to get a single goddamn thing passed with a GOP senate and House. Clinton's actually working for the downballot, and the Senate has a very good chance of flipping at least.

 

[necrosis]

That's...normal for a campaign.

yeah, it is

and it's fucking abhorrent

 

[AxelFoley]

She doesn't need the money, though. You're acting as though this is some close race.

Shit ain't over until it's over.

 

[Armaros]

I'm getting real sick of people not taking Trump's chances seriously.

The irony being is that the same people are calling her voters complacent and to be worried about Trumps chances and yet complain about fundraising with 'she doesn't need to'

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I wonder if this was another country and one of the potential leaders was spending a ton of time with rich and powerful people would people still be saying I see nothing wrong here

You're right, Democrats should let themselves get outspent by Trump and get overcome by his free media coverage advantage.

All this talk of disappearing, she gave a speech to a crowd of veterans and unveiled her mental health plan. How much coverage did that get? It's laughable how people rely on the media to tell them what did and did not happen in the world on any given day.

 

[royalan]

Victory for herself and her party?

At a certain point you can't hate the player, you gotta hate the game.

Exactly.

Our campaign finance system is in gross need of retooling. But laying that at the feet of Hillary Clinton is incredibly transparent at this point. Some people just don't like her, and need any sort of straw to grasp onto in order to justify that dislike. Like it or not, Hillary is doing what traditionally needs to be done by winning campaigns. All those campaign offices and staff don't pay for themselves. The only reason this is news is because the Republican nominee is NOT doing it. He's too busy shoving his foot in his month every other day (oh, and funneling whatever money he does raise back into his own business). And the result is he's losing.

And for what it's worth, President Obama introduced rules in 2008 that prohibited the DNC from accepting PAC money, and those rules stayed in place until just this year. But what happened? Democrats were routinely out-raised, outspent and curb-stomped in local elections.

Hate the game.

 

[Saganator]

It's crazy how those people can just toss around $100k like it's a 100 dollar bill. That kind of money in one lump would be life changing for most people.

And to be completely honest, if I was rich as fuck, I'd be falling over myself to give Hillary money to make sure she doesn't lose to Trump.

 

[benjipwns]

Sure but she's not exactly Sue Storm either.

 

[BlastProcessing]

She's been far less visible and accessible.

Part of the problem is that a falling comet is less visible that Trump. For example on the same day that Trump made his wacky trip to Mexico, Clinton gave a very good speech about outlining her stance on American Exceptionalism.

The only way that she can reliably cut through Trump national coverage right now is if she personally attacks Trump hard. She can't constantly do that. There are limits to how negative you can go. No matter how warranted, constant attack turns voters off.

So the strategy is right now is to focus on getting local news coverage and to raise money that will go towards down ticket races and Get Out the Vote initiatives. Later this week, there is a joint Trump/Clinton town hall on NBC. That's really her next opportunity to get coverage.

 

[hokahey]

How dare anyone be rich or *gasp* take their money for advertising their candidacy.

And stating that it's a waste of resources...couldn't we argue that the billions of dollars spent on movies and video games is as well?

The only way out of this is to deny freedom of speech. Because the money is needed to essentially advertise. If advertising ones campaign is restricted, it's a free speech violation.

If the public refuses to vote for anyone that's not a brand, then we get what we deserve, and we enable this system.

But more to the point, I take no issue with a politician raising money to finance their campaign. It's up to me whether I vote for them or not.

We could all, you know, write in Evilore if we really wanted to.

Majority opinion is not always the best opinion. But such is the way Democracy functions.

 

[Aaronology]

Disgusting. And people actually preferred her over Bernie. USA are doomed by their stupidity

Oh. You think the millions of voters in the demographics that chose Clinton over Sanders did so out of ignorance, hm?

 

[Ozigizo]

First 3 of 5 posts. Is this really normal in America? Should we really accept this no matter who is doing it?

Maybe read the rest of the thread.

 

[Armaros]

Part of the problem is that a falling comet is less visible that Trump. For example on the same day that Trump made his wacky trip to Mexico, Clinton gave a very good speech about outlining her stance on American Exceptionalism.

The only way that she can reliably cut through Trump national coverage right now is if she personally attacks Trump hard. She can't constantly do that. There are limits to how negative you can go. No matter how warranted, constant attack turns voters off.

So the strategy is right now is to focus on getting local news coverage and to raise money that will go towards down ticket races and Get Out the Vote initiatives. Later this week, there is a joint Trump/Clinton town hall on NBC. That's really her next opportunity to get coverage.

Also the idea that national media would cover her policy speeches and local campaigning vs just covering Trumps daily foibles is pretty funny.

Even on GAF, people would rather talk emails or the Foundation or Trump then anything else about the election.

 

[Elandyll]

? Private fundraisers are new?

Also, at some point with all the Trump coverage I too was wondering what her and her surrogates were doing, but then a news report on CNN, right before going right back to Trump, did a fly-by mention that Clinton was having a meeting with the American Legion, and Biden was having an event too.

Wonder why people feel that Clinton isn't active eh?
Anyways, things ramp up starting tomorrow as planned, with the last 60-ish days of the campaign.

 

[JABEE]

That's not an answer.

Who should we be focusing on when criticizing this situation? Is it wrong to point out how our feelings now on this type of thing and the context of current events can't lead us to criticize someone running for the highest political office in the most powerful country on the planet?

Also, I answered your question. She enriches herself by doing speaking tours like other public officials. This is no different than other presidents, but this does not make it better.

 

[jack_package_200]

Sadly this is whats necessary until we can appoint judges who will strike down these ridiculous campaign finance laws.

Hate the game, not the player. I'm sure the player wants nothing to do with the game.

Oh. You think the millions of voters in the demographics that chose Clinton over Sanders did so out of ignorance, hm?

I guess we are back to just being low information voters again.

 

[AxelFoley]

This is such a dumb criticism. Hey, the Republicans are gerrymandering and disenfranchising voters - we gotta do it too! Come on, keep that skin in the game, win at any cost!

Shitty behavior is shitty regardless of who is doing it. Turning a blind eye to shitty behavior because it benefits you is, like, fundamentally unethical.

Who the fuck said doing anything as bad as gerrymandering?

FOH

 

[Kyzer]

So why are these pro-TPP people donating to Hillary? Just for fun?

That the donors have no influence just sounds naive.

To help her win. Thats why you donate.

Why are all these poor people donating $20 to bernie sanders? Just for fun? Sounds naive to me

It seems naive because its easy to worry about the unknown. Its not that I dont question things, its important to be weary and keep an open mind, for sure. Its just like. The idea that all things must be bad and the system is fucked and we are slaves to the elite is a pretty basic opinion that one scary youtube video can persuade you into believing. It took me years to feel not scared of the system. Similar to my support of Hillary. Trust me, I started off distrusting, and assuming foul play. Then when you do research you find out theres no there there, to the point where you stop assuming these things until theres evidence.

Theres certainly too much money in politics but mostly within the law, which is really what we should be working towards changing. I have no doubt Hillary kisses these guys butts, but im much more inclined to think its for the $$$ to help her win than because shes a morally bankrupt crooked hillary caricature thats willing to sell her soul and the country.

 

[benjipwns]

Why are all these poor people donating $20 to bernie sanders? Just for fun? Sounds naive to me

To curry favor and buy his votes in Congress.

 

[King Tubby]

The excuses people make for this sort of thing being "politics as usual" are rather disappointing.

 

[Thaedolus]

So why are these pro-TPP people donating to Hillary? Just for fun?

That the donors have no influence just sounds naive.

Maybe they're not one-issue voters and the other candidate is anti-TPP as well? Did you think that question through past the "fuck Hillary" answer?

 

[Chichikov]

Did it ends up with a Freaky Friday body switch where everyone learns a valuable lesson?

 

[JABEE]

Money in politics is fine as long as there's no explicit quid pro quo, said Republicans arguing in support of Citizens United.

I'm the words of Drew Brees, "Show me the evidence."

 

[Kin5290]

When did Bernie disappear for this long only to be seen amongst the elite?

Well, she spoke to a labor union a few days ago. I guess the NY Times didn't consider that newsworthy.

 

[benjipwns]

Did it ends up with a Freaky Friday body switch where everyone learns a valuable lesson?

No, but this happened another time due to Johnny and Ben's rough-housing:

But it's all cool later:

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Media doesn't cover Clinton because Trump is busy acting nice to black people.

Media then asks oh my god where in the world is Hillary Clinton?

 

[Chichikov]

No, but this happened another time due to Johnny and Ben's rough-housing:

But it's all cool later:

It was Vic Mackey all along.

 

[DavidDesu]

I've only given this thread a glance, and can't really dip into the larger conversation that's going on right now. That said, this comment gets under my skin a little. "The Establishment Picked Her!" is a fantasy based sentiment I've seen come from some of the most out of touch people this election cycle. Hillary wasn't forced on America, DpadD. She was not "chosen" by the "elites." Millions of people voted for her in a Primary that she handedly won by being a better and more palatable candidate than her opposition.

No one is asking you to "get in line" here, and frankly if you see voting for this particular Democratic ticket as some onerous task I think you have bigger problems than your dislike for Clinton.

Yeah but wasn't the super delegate count wildly over reported by the mainstream media to make it look like Hilary had an insurmountable lead, giving a false view of the campaign? Or just the fact these super delegates, who can choose who they wish and have a much larger say than the average person, seems like a really undemocratic system for the 'Democratic' party. It was all skewed to Hilary's favour from the off and like a self fulfilling prophecy there she is as the candidate. She was likely going to win to be sure given Bernies pretty outrageous socialism (as far as America goes) but from the outset she was the chosen one, and the only real option, whether people were given a fair pick of alternatives or not.

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

Media doesn't cover Clinton because Trump is busy acting nice to black people.

Media then asks oh my god where in the world is Hillary Clinton?

you know, I'm not a clever man, but I'm... Pretty sure that's not how this happened

 

[benjipwns]

It was Vic Mackey all along.

 

[jack_package_200]

Yeah but wasn't the super delegate count wildly over reported by the mainstream media to make it look like Hilary had an insurmountable lead, giving a false view of the campaign? Or just the fact these super delegates, who can choose who they wish and have a much larger say than the average person, seems like a really undemocratic system for the 'Democratic' party. It was all skewed to Hilary's favour from the off and like a self fulfilling prophecy there she is as the candidate. She was likely going to win to be sure given Bernies pretty outrageous socialism (as far as America goes) but from the outset she was the chosen one, and the only real option, whether people were given a fair pick of alternatives or not.

Superdelegates have never overturned the will of the people. When Obama surpassed Hillary in pledged delegates in 08, they switched to him.

They operate as a failsafe in the event of the winning candidate was in a massive scandal like being caught on your cancer-stricken wife or being indicted.

 

[Kin5290]

you know, I'm not a clever man, but I'm... Pretty sure that's not how this happened

It is exactly what happened.

The media ignores Clinton's campaign events, which are covered in local press, but report on a high society fundraiser that she holds as if they are the only events that she is holding.

 

[Holmes]

Sue Storm is so iconique.

 

[TwoDurans]

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. She's been building her war chest and will open it up in the last 60 days to the election. This is how successful candidates have been running campaigns since the 80s.

It's only noticeable now because Trump can't get enough of himself on camera, and by comparison it seems like Clinton is a recluse.

 

[Armaros]

It is exactly what happened.

The media ignores Clinton's campaign events, which are covered in local press, but report on a high society fundraiser that she holds as if they are the only events that she is holding.

I wonder if GAF knows she had given Multiple speeches on various topics since the Alt-Right Trump speech.

 

[Pamplemousse]

Media doesn't cover Clinton because Trump is busy acting nice to black people.

Media then asks oh my god where in the world is Hillary Clinton?

She hasn't given a press conference in 274 days.

 

[benjipwns]

Sue Storm is so iconique.

BUT. REED. HAS. THINGS. TO. DO.

 

[xxracerxx]

She hasn't given a press conference in 274 days.

She is campaigning, there is no need for press conferences.

 

[Gutek]

She doesn't need the money, though. You're acting as though this is some close race.

Trump is back within 3 points of Clinton in recent polls, tho.

 

[Armaros]

She hasn't given a press conference in 274 days.

How come now it's about press conferences?

Moving goal posts now?

 

[royalan]

Yeah but wasn't the super delegate count wildly over reported by the mainstream media to make it look like Hilary had an insurmountable lead, giving a false view of the campaign? Or just the fact these super delegates, who can choose who they wish and have a much larger say than the average person, seems like a really undemocratic system for the 'Democratic' party. It was all skewed to Hilary's favour from the off and like a self fulfilling prophecy there she is as the candidate. She was likely going to win to be sure given Bernies pretty outrageous socialism (as far as America goes) but from the outset she was the chosen one, and the only real option, whether people were given a fair pick of alternatives or not.

This thinking was incredibly frustrating during the primaries.

If it is going to be suggested the media reporting on the superdelegate totals suppressed the Sanders vote, you have to also consider the equal likelihood that it could have suppressed the Clinton vote by creating the impression that she "had it in the bag."

Superdelegates had nothing to do with Sanders losing. Sanders refusing to do the work to form a winning coalition before the primaries began, and not appealing to the demographics he needed to secure the nomination is why he lost.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Superdelegates have never overturned the will of the people. When Obama surpassed Hillary in pledged delegates in 08, they switched to him.

They operate as a failsafe in the event of the winning candidate was in a massive scandal like being caught on your cancer-stricken wife or being indicted.

They also serve to bump up the winner of a plurality of votes in a three way race to a majority to avoid a contested convention.

 

[Armaros]

Yeah but wasn't the super delegate count wildly over reported by the mainstream media to make it look like Hilary had an insurmountable lead, giving a false view of the campaign? Or just the fact these super delegates, who can choose who they wish and have a much larger say than the average person, seems like a really undemocratic system for the 'Democratic' party. It was all skewed to Hilary's favour from the off and like a self fulfilling prophecy there she is as the candidate. She was likely going to win to be sure given Bernies pretty outrageous socialism (as far as America goes) but from the outset she was the chosen one, and the only real option, whether people were given a fair pick of alternatives or not.

If the media reporting superdelegates numbers was enough to derail Bernie Supporters, they deserved to lose.

It's just that simple

Why stop at just super delegate numbers? She has many many more times the endorsements over Bernie. Did media reporting on that also stopped Bernie Supporters from coming out?

How about early polling that showed she was crushin him? We can keep on this path and breakdown that literally everything reported about how she was beating him was suppressing his turnout.

 

[Eidan]

She hasn't given a press conference in 274 days.

She fielded questions from the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

A lot of news outlets just want more opportunities to field questions on emails and the Clinton Foundation.