Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm talking about your post about Clinton not being out there.

Well, she has been a little over the past few days, I'll give her credit where credit is due. However, she's spent more or less a month off the boil to no real advantage, which is what is reflected in this report, and has ground to make up if she wants to cement the Senate or have a shot at taking the House.

 

[Crocodile]

I'm going via the 538 Nowcast and the NYTimes election polling average, both of which have showed Trump steadily regaining over the past few weeks. How they seem is, of course, up to you.

He was arguing against your statement that "she wasn't/hasn't been doing anything" in the face of the Trump "pivot". That wasn't true before and that especially isn't true now.

 

[TestOfTide]

And no one seems to be able to point to any of her votes to prove it. People just feel it.

Because they somehow think that expanding the DNC's "Big Tent" to start including business type conservatives and moderate conservatives is a bad thing.

As long as Hillary isn't trying to appeal to hardcore social conservatives and overt bigots like the Family Research Council, we should be embracing this expansion.

 

[Jonm1010]

That doesn't respond to my point. Even if this recovery is something that most campaigns experience, it doesn't mean there isn't reason to try and prevent it, rather than just let it happen. I think you might need to take a course in critical analysis to go with your one in polsci, no good having the latter without the former.

It's a question of whether her trying to steal or dominate the media spotlight would actually be more effective then her current strategy. You haven't actually offered up any argument for why it would be.

All you have done is point out a trend that happens in almost every election in recent history. You haven't actually proven any causation.

Setting aside of course that your characterization of her campaign is at odds with reality, as Bam Bam pointed out.

 

[dramatis]

It's not either or, it's a statement that genuineness does in fact mean something. I'm not looking for "experience", I'm looking for judgment. Should I have voted for McCain?

The post you were responding to said this:

Goes to show that people are more obsessed over charm than policy as he's to the right of her. But that doesn't matter I guess.

You were making excuses for why someone would vote for Biden over Hillary when he is to her right. If you're preferring someone who agrees less with your policy positions because he's "more charming", then the one who is at fault isn't Hillary, it's you.

Hillary has been doing all sorts of reaching out through policy speeches, small scale meetings, and so on. But if you pretend that only these other politicians has "given the appearance of caring" when Hillary has done the same, just that you selectively choose to ignore her outreach efforts, then the one who is at fault is also you, not her. Because no matter what she does, you're picking and choosing what you see from her, not because she never tried.

Don't try to change the subject.

 

[OriginalThinking]

I really don't understand why people think Hillary's crooked. Is it because she knows people within Wall Street? I mean she's a politician so if she has any sense she'll have compromised on her values - and that's a good thing because if you want political change creating policies with people you otherwise would disagree with is necessary. Short of revolution (which is normally processed by a catastrophic event) political change is slow and frustrating by nature and having ideologues in charge on either wing rarely delivers anything positive. Is it because she's too centrist? Female? Something else?

 

[SirClinksAlot]

Joe Biden could have been a moderate Republican in the 90s but apparently it's all good because of personality.

Do you people even how realize how lame this is? You're putting aside policy and the implications on the future government on things that you'd vote for homecoming king/queen on. What a willful and inexplicable display of pure ignorance. I would vote for Biden, Sanders, Clinton or virtually any other Dem that isn't Grayson because Trump is a joke.

The onion has a lot to do with this. A lot of those great Uncle Joe articles cloud people on who Biden actually is policy wise (hint, not nearly as liberal as Hillary).

 

[Good Job Bob]

Because they somehow think that expanding the DNC's "Big Tent" to start including business type conservatives and moderate conservatives is a bad thing.

As long as Hillary isn't trying to appeal to hardcore social conservatives and overt bigots like the Family Research Council, we should be embracing this expansion.

Some people actually give a shit about economic leftism. Crazy, I know.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Hillary uses racist terms like superpredator and her family backed some terrible legislation for minorities, of course young blacks should be skeptical. Still infinitely superior than Trump but her toxic ratings just might trickle down to a worse downticket than what even Obama faced, thank god for Trump lmao

You mean she used it in a speech TWENTY YEARS AGO and has since apologized for it. Not to mention Hillary isn't her husband. Yes she was first lady and spoke on his policies, but she had no part in drafting or enacting them.

 

[JustenP88]

How many people are seriously advocating for Biden > Clinton vs the amount of people in here desperately clinging to that derail to make the dissent look stupid?

 

[Armaros]

I have never seen people care so much about appearance over substance and yet at the same time accuse the politican working on substance that she is too inauthentic but should do X for visuals and optics.

 

[entremet]

I really don't understand why people think Hillary's crooked. Is it because she knows people within Wall Street? I mean she's a politician so if she has any sense she'll have compromised on her values - and that's a good thing because if you want political change creating policies with people you otherwise would disagree with is necessary. Short of revolution (which is normally processed by a catastrophic event) political change is slow and frustrating by nature and having ideologues in charge on either wing rarely delivers anything positive. Is it because she's too centrist? Female? Something else?

Really?

She has a laundry list of baggage. Overblown? Possibly.

But compared to her predecessor? She has a lot a stuff to attack her for.

 

[jwhit28]

I'm saying Hillary's positive points are being drowned out by just how much attention Trump draws from the media. Not that she doesn't have any. I don't know how she goes about changing that since her talking points aren't the same repeatable round-a-bout as build a wall, get them out, bring jobs home. I live in NC and her media presence is mostly just Anti-Trump. Unless you catch her live, you will never see her speak on her own platforms. I don't know if it's because we are a battleground state or not.

 

[KHarvey16]

Some people actually give a shit about economic leftism. Crazy, I know.

Point out the votes.

 

[Boke1879]

I really don't understand why people think Hillary's crooked. Is it because she knows people within Wall Street? I mean she's a politician so if she has any sense she'll have compromised on her values - and that's a good thing because if you want political change creating policies with people you otherwise would disagree with is necessary. Short of revolution (which is normally processed by a catastrophic event) political change is slow and frustrating by nature and having ideologues in charge on either wing rarely delivers anything positive. Is it because she's too centrist? Female? Something else?

It mostly comes down to the "optics" not looking good for Hillary dispute her not doing anything wrong.

Yet over the course of Trumps business life he's done some despicable shit. Like not renting to black people and fucking give 25grand to the Florida AG that the media has just refused to talk about. Yet Hillary is the more untrustworthy one of the two.

It really comes down to Hillary being attacked for 30 years by the right and having a lot of that shit stick to her.

 

[Melkezadek]

I'm saying Hillary's positive points are being drowned out by just how much attention Trump draws from the media. Not that she doesn't have any. I don't know how she goes about changing that since her talking points aren't the same repeatable round-a-bout as build a wall, get them out, bring jobs home. I live in NC and her media presence is mostly just Anti-Trump. Unless you catch her live, you will never see her speak on her own platforms. I don't know if it's because we are a battleground state or not.

But you said before that she hasn't spoke on any policy recently, not that it was being drowned out.

This election, unforutnely, seems to be about personality, not policy. Which is why Trump is hogging the headlines and people don't even care to notice that she is raising the points and detailing her plans. Points and plans that they are probably for.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Really?

She has a laundry list of baggage. Overblown? Possibly.

But compared to her predecessor? She has a lot a stuff to attack her for.

There's no possibly about it. The shit about her that has absolutely owned the news cycle shit is over-fucking-blown.

I mean, The Clinton Foundation, REALLY? This is the shit the media laser focused on, let alone gave the time of day?

 

[TestOfTide]

Some people actually give a shit about economic leftism. Crazy, I know.

Okay great. But you aren't going to get left leaning economics passed without first winning more elections.

Do you want to start seeing Democrats being competitive in all 50 states? Well it's going to require getting the support of people that aren't left or liberal on every single issue.

Or would you rather the DNC go the way of Corbyn's Labour Party?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's a question of whether her trying to steal or dominate the media spotlight would actually be more effective then her current strategy. You haven't actually offered up any argument for why it would be. All you have done is point out a trend that happens in almost every election in recent history. You haven't actually proven any causation.

1. American politics is heavily polarized. There are very few true swing voters (can be persuaded to vote R rather than D or vice versa). There are a large amount of apathetic voters (can be persuaded to vote at all rather than abstain or vice versa). There are a number of papers on this I can link you to if you are interested.
2. Apathetic voters are persuaded to vote by positive enthusiasm, rather than negative pragmatism. See Trump hit himself isn't as effective at increasing your likeliness to vote as seeing Clinton offer appealing policies. This is one of the conclusions of the Democratic research that has formed the basis of the OP.
3. From 1. and 2., Clinton letting Trump hit himself is therefore less effective than Clinton trying to seize the headlines, and the adage of letting your opponent hit themselves belongs to a different political era when American politics was less partisan.

Setting aside of course that your characterization of her campaign is at odds with reality, as Bam Bam pointed out.

I disagree, unless we're talking specifically the last day or so.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I'm getting tired of this "she won by 3 million votes". If that is your argument for why she is better, then you are by proxy saying that Netanyahu, Duterte, Erogdan or any other terrible democratically elected majority figure is the best fit for the country. The idea that someone is better because of a popularity contest is a ignorant statement. If you think she has better policies, then say that- Stop justifying your sthick based on idiocy like this. Popular opinion is not consensus.

Secondly, please understand that a a significant amount of people didn't know who Bernie Sanders is. There is a reason why well known populists tend to win elections in the United States, and its due to the fact that the average voter- Not just in the US (see Berlusconi) votes for the person they recognize the most on TV. Hillary Supporters are seriously downplaying the importance of exposure. According to Bernies own estimate, 60-70% of Americans didnt know who he was. Which is why the DNC had so few debates (less exposure) and why Hillary immediately focused on the self-sabotaging clown, because engaging Sanders would give him more exposure. Hillary won fair and square in the system we have, but it's fucked up shitty system. It's a system heavily influcenced by money interest (legally), with the DNC being full of characters, laws, regulations and rules set in place that creates the potential for bias, favorism. A sort of bias that would be unacceptable in many other forms of public life.

Hillarys unlikeability partly comes down to that she is a pandering baby kissing career politician. Yes, she gets under the knife more than many others, but right now it's not just right wing propaganda and sexism due to her being a woman, but a rising sentiment over many years that politicians say what they want to be elected and then don't follow through. This is a sentiment shared all over the world. Hillary is the front figure of that. It is what she is. It is what a politician has always been. But this surge of contempt reflects (particularly) young peoples hatred and apathy for the process. People are so cynical they cannot see the forest from the trees, and in come Hillary- Not worse, but more of the same, type of politician who talk sweet honey words and carefully drafted worded statements maximized not to piss of anybody. It's not what many people want right now.
Millennials are not swayed about what she says she will do, but you can hardly forgive anyone who feel uncomfortable. Not just by the way she carry herself, but by the amount of time where she has been on the wrong side. She is not entitled to anybodies forgiveness, and clearly "I have changed" falls on death ears.
She is getting so many passes because her opponent is a degenerate sociopath who must not win. Of course that stings. It could have been Elizabeth Warren, or some other less career oriented politician who spoke more for the poor and common class.
I really hope with all my heart Hillary wins. I think she is a splendid politician, but many people are fed up with this process and they hate the system. Hillary represents the face of a timid tent hypocritical tent pole party. And when you're a young college grad, why would you give a fuck more than anybody else? EVERYBODY votes selfish. old people, rich people, middle class, lower class. Everybody votes biased towards what they get out of it.
And saying Trump and Clinton are equal is outrageous. The republican party is barely a political party at this point but more akin to a facist movement in its treatment of people. Gay conversion therapy, assault weapons for teachers in elementary schools, and federal bans on abortion are the policies of mad men. For all intents and purposes this sort of abuse might as well be some form of western doctrine akin to a christian form of Sharia law imposing itself on all.

Clinton has to win and she is a smart person. History will judge her presidency, but right now people are angry at her, and have a right to be angry with her because she represents a system that people hate.
You can support someone and still be critical to the person you're supporting. You can do anything in your power for them to win, and still take a step back and realize that the anger aimed at that person represents decade of pent up frustration with two-party politics, a sense of not being listened to, growing income inequality, worsening quality of life for many people (but better for others).

And lastly, when people are mad, they talk mad shit and over exaggerate. Just let them have their fill and talk themselves tired. Life sucks. You have to work more for stagnant wages. Your career is being automated. You're going to have less than your parents, you will realistically live home until you're married, you will pay of your student debts in 10-20 years. You got a right to be mad at the system. It's understandable. The United States is incredible wealthy but spends so much on defense, while special money interests have historic soaring profits, and while shadow banking runs amok. Hillary just represents a class of person who rubs it in the face of those whose lives of shit. She is not the messenger she want, and this is worsened by the fact that she has these problems as a orator.
This really bothers me, because Hillary being uncomfortable or not being a good speaker should not (in an ideal world) keep her from being president. Because that is the type of judgment that prove that people vote for a mascot, and not a political candidate who runs on policies.

 

[Elfforkusu]

The post you were responding to said this:

You were making excuses for why someone would vote for Biden over Hillary when he is to her right. If you're preferring someone who agrees less with your policy positions because he's "more charming", then the one who is at fault isn't Hillary, it's you.

Hillary has been doing all sorts of reaching out through policy speeches, small scale meetings, and so on. But if you pretend that only these other politicians has "given the appearance of caring" when Hillary has done the same, just that you selectively choose to ignore her outreach efforts, then the one who is at fault is also you, not her. Because no matter what she does, you're picking and choosing what you see from her, not because she never tried.

Don't try to change the subject.

I don't see how it's changing the subject?

You call it "charm", I call it genuineness. I trust Biden's judgement over Hillary's. For this reason, I would vote for Biden over Hillary, no questions asked.

Why do I just Biden's judgement? Possibly because of his "charm". Possibly because it feels like there's more of a dialogue, rather than a candidate presenting policy positions prepared for public consumption by professional marketers.

You will say that this is a fault. I say, no: it's a good thing. Maybe even an essential thing. There is value in it, even if it's merely the appearance of a dialogue.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have never seen people care so much about appearance over substance and yet at the same time accuse the politican working on substance that she is too inauthentic but should do X for visuals and optics.

Holding media conferences doesn't damage one's authenticity. It's literally just an opportunity to remind people that you exist and that you have policies. I don't think anyone's problem with Clinton was ever that she conducted too many press conferences. But have fun constructing that straw man.

 

[Armaros]

Holding media conferences doesn't damage one's authenticity. It's literally just an opportunity to remind people that you exist and that you have policies. I don't think anyone's problem with Clinton was ever that she conducted too many press conferences. But have fun constructing that straw man.

No you just attributed press conferences to authencity.

And don't pretend you didn't.

Policy? So a press conference would mean talk of policy instead of what the media has spent the entire election jumping around from?

Are you going to sit there and pretend it's wouldn't be about emails and the Foundation?

 

[Holmes]

If your excuse is "Sanders isn't weak, no one knew who he was" then..... you're basically implying that he was weak. Because he had over a year to put together a team and put himself out there and get to know people, and you're saying he was unable to do that. Not that I even agree with that statement - the Sanders spam here was really intense in the three or so weeks leading up to the California primary that it was almost insufferable. People knew him.

 

[Cyframe]

Your first problem is assigning so much responsibility to the office of the presidency.

She doesn't make the laws, only signs them. Let's assume Democrats can't take the House or a veto prof majority in the senate? What is she to do?

Her direct contribution very early will be through appointments to the Supreme Court. Outside of that, barring control of congress, realistic expectations of what could and could not get done is functionally not going to be much different if it was Hillary winning, Bernie or Obama somehow getting a third term. The opposite is not true though, a Trump presidency would be disasterous.

Not quite. I never said that the President makes laws or assigned all responsibility to the office of the Presidency. The position and title gives gives a person a significant voice, including appointing justices, which you mentioned. George W. Bush was integral in swaying initial public opinion for a war, the President has a big pulpit. (and to be clear I used him as an example, not alluding to Hillary creating a war).

I don't really see the crux of your comment to be honest. I was addressing why people may feel disenfranchised. Your mention of Trump is completely pointless.

Do you think Democrats could do a better job when it comes to addressing systematic racism? That was my main point, and I think they could. When Hillary went to Flint Michigan, she put a spotlight on an issue (that still needs to be resolved). When she went should she have said "I can't technically do anything but I'm here", come on now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No you just attributed press conferences to authencity.

And don't pretend you didn't.

Why bother posting if you're not going to read what people say?

 

[Aaronology]

I'm getting tired of this "she won by 3 million votes". If that is your argument for why she is better, then you are by proxy saying that Netanyahu, Duterte, Erogdan or any other terrible democratically elected majority figure is the best fit for the country. The idea that someone is better because of a popularity contest is a ignorant statement. If you think she has better policies, then say that...

I can't even finish your impressively lengthy post because this comment grinds my gears so. What the hell else has anyone been doing? You're on GAF enough to know that plenty of people shout to the heavens about Clinton's qualifications, her political history, her accomplishments and her stances.

Should I even bother reading the remainder of that when you're being so incredibly dishonest at the start of it? I really do not want to.

 

[Crocodile]

Really?

She has a laundry list of baggage. Overblown? Possibly.

But compared to her predecessor? She has a lot a stuff to attack her for.

She's been in politics longer than most before they got their shot at the presidency and has been under direct-fire for decades. Nobody outside Illinois knew who Obama was before 2004. I do think Obama overall has done a splendid job trying to keep his head above the water during his campaign and presidency but imagine if they had been hitting him with birther type shit for decades instead of just the past 6 or so years. That leaves a mark after a while regardless of veracity.

Criticism is fine. Calling Clinton a crooked, inauthentic bigot in the palm of Wall Street (as many posters in this thread and voters elsewhere have done) is not congruent with reality. That is what that poster is addressing/asking about. That is why these topics tend to go belly up. It's hard to have a conversation because while there are real concerns people could discuss, too many people are too busy posting about their "feelings", holding primary salt, have no idea what her actual resume or policies look like or occasionally just post alt-right memes and photo-shopped images as rebuttals.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't see how it's changing the subject?

You call it "charm", I call it genuineness. I trust Biden's judgement over Hillary's. For this reason, I would vote for Biden over Hillary, no questions asked.

Why do I just Biden's judgement? Possibly because of his "charm". Possibly because it feels like there's more of a dialogue, rather than a candidate presenting policy positions prepared for public consumption by professional marketers.

You will say that this is a fault. I say, no: it's a good thing. Maybe even an essential thing. There is value in it, even if it's merely the appearance of a dialogue.

Okay. So what dialogs do you want to hear more of from Hillary?

 

[Melkezadek]

I don't see how it's changing the subject?

You call it "charm", I call it genuineness. I trust Biden's judgement over Hillary's. For this reason, I would vote for Biden over Hillary, no questions asked.

Why do I just Biden's judgement? Possibly because of his "charm". Possibly because it feels like there's more of a dialogue, rather than a candidate presenting policy positions prepared for public consumption by professional marketers.

You will say that this is a fault. I say, no: it's a good thing. Maybe even an essential thing. There is value in it, even if it's merely the appearance of a dialogue.

I would say evaluating anyone's genuineness because of their charm is terrible, actually. Choosing to ignore what they are actually selling to you because of the way they sell it is allowing yourself to be conned.

It allows people to claim they distrust Hillary because she voted for the war in Iraq but salivate at the opportunity to vote for Biden.

 

[ShdwDrake]

And this is why. Who responds well to this?

 

[jwhit28]

But you said before that she hasn't spoke on any policy recently, not that it was being drowned out.

Her news becomes old news faster than Trump's. I can't think of any other reason why so many younger people fall into "they are both the same" trap around here. The Benghazi e-mail scandal can't still be that effective at bringing up negative opinions.

 

[Blader]

If voters really can't tell the difference between what a vote for Trump means or what a vote for Hillary means, then they shouldn't vote. This is one of the clearest contrasts between presidential candidates in a long time.

(And on the subject of choosing between being stabbed or shot, getting stabbed is way more survivable.)

 

[ebullientprism]

I'm getting tired of this "she won by 3 million votes". If that is your argument for why she is better, then you are by proxy saying that Netanyahu, Duterte, Erogdan or any other terrible democratically elected majority figure is the best fit for the country. The idea that someone is better because of a popularity contest is a ignorant statement. If you think she has better policies, then say that- Stop justifying your sthick based on idiocy like this. Popular opinion is not consensus.

Secondly, please understand that a a significant amount of people didn't know who Bernie Sanders is. There is a reason why well known populists tend to win elections in the United States, and its due to the fact that the average voter- Not just in the US (see Berlusconi) votes for the person they recognize the most on TV. Hillary Supporters are seriously downplaying the importance of exposure. According to Bernies own estimate, 60-70% of Americans didnt know who he was. Which is why the DNC had so few debates (less exposure) and why Hillary immediately focused on the self-sabotaging clown, because engaging Sanders would give him more exposure. Hillary won fair and square in the system we have, but it's fucked up shitty system. It's a system heavily influcenced by money interest (legally), with the DNC being full of characters, laws, regulations and rules set in place that creates the potential for bias, favorism. A sort of bias that would be unacceptable in many other forms of public life.

Hillarys unlikeability partly comes down to that she is a pandering baby kissing career politician. Yes, she gets under the knife more than many others, but right now it's not just right wing propaganda and sexism due to her being a woman, but a rising sentiment over many years that politicians say what they want to be elected and then don't follow through. This is a sentiment shared all over the world. Hillary is the front figure of that. It is what she is. It is what a politician has always been. But this surge of contempt reflects (particularly) young peoples hatred and apathy for the process. People are so cynical they cannot see the forest from the trees, and in come Hillary- Not worse, but more of the same, type of politician who talk sweet honey words and carefully drafted worded statements maximized not to piss of anybody. It's not what many people want right now.
Millennials are not swayed about what she says she will do, but you can hardly forgive anyone who feel uncomfortable. Not just by the way she carry herself, but by the amount of time where she has been on the wrong side. She is not entitled to anybodies forgiveness, and clearly "I have changed" falls on death ears.
She is getting so many passes because her opponent is a degenerate sociopath who must not win. Of course that stings. It could have been Elizabeth Warren, or some other less career oriented politician who spoke more for the poor and common class.
I really hope with all my heart Hillary wins. I think she is a splendid politician, but many people are fed up with this process and they hate the system. Hillary represents the face of a timid tent hypocritical tent pole party. And when you're a young college grad, why would you give a fuck more than anybody else? EVERYBODY votes selfish. old people, rich people, middle class, lower class. Everybody votes biased towards what they get out of it.
And saying Trump and Clinton are equal is outrageous. The republican party is barely a political party at this point but more akin to a facist movement in its treatment of people. Gay conversion therapy, assault weapons for teachers in elementary schools, and federal bans on abortion are the policies of mad men. For all intents and purposes this sort of abuse might as well be some form of western doctrine akin to a christian form of Sharia law imposing itself on all.

Clinton has to win and she is a smart person. History will judge her presidency, but right now people are angry at her, and have a right to be angry with her because she represents a system that people hate.
You can support someone and still be critical to the person you're supporting. You can do anything in your power for them to win, and still take a step back and realize that the anger aimed at that person represents decade of pent up frustration with two-party politics, a sense of not being listened to, growing income inequality, worsening quality of life for many people (but better for others).

And lastly, when people are mad, they talk mad shit and over exaggerate. Just let them have their fill and talk themselves tired. Life sucks. You have to work more for stagnant wages. Your career is being automated. You're going to have less than your parents, you will realistically live home until you're married, you will pay of your student debts in 10-20 years. You got a right to be mad at the system. It's understandable. The United States is incredible wealthy but spends so much on defense, while special money interests have historic soaring profits, and while shadow banking runs amok. Hillary just represents a class of person who rubs it in the face of those whose lives of shit. She is not the messenger she want, and this is worsened by the fact that she has these problems as a orator.
This really bothers me, because Hillary being uncomfortable or not being a good speaker should not (in an ideal world) keep her from being president. Because that is the type of judgment that prove that people vote for a mascot, and not a political candidate who runs on policies.

Hear fucking hear.

 

[DarkKyo]

No Bernie would have been much worse.

Lol are you kidding me? Whether or not you like Bernie it's obvious he'd be far ahead of where Hillary is. Far more inspiring politician and person in general. It's just impossible for Clinton to generate even a spark of passion in most.

 

[Melkezadek]

Her news becomes old news faster than Trump's. I can't think of any other reason why so many younger people fall into "they are both the same" trap around here. The Benghazi e-mail scandal can't still be that effective at bringing up negative opinions.

Why do you keep avoiding the point that you claimed she hasn't spoke on policy when in fact she has?

No, it just hasn't been very recent. Trump's personality is dominating both sides right now. It's easy to forget things like school loan forgiveness when Hilary spends more time talking about how Trump is terrible. The information is readily available, and she plans to do some good things. She just isn't selling them very well right now. I think that's why both her and Trump's approval numbers are so dreadful. Trump has managed to turn this into Trump vs not-Trump

Can you just admit that you simply did not know, because you probably did not care? You're a victim of exactly what you're describing. And I think many others are also a victim to it without even realizing it. Especially if they already don't like her. Ironically, if she was actually the "evil corrupt establishment politician" as some make her out to be, we'd probably hear about her more.

 

[B-Dubs]

Hear fucking hear.

Except that most of his post is intellectually dishonest at best. Just because it's long doesn't make it right, it just makes it more annoying to sift through and debunk.

Lol are you kidding me? Whether or not you like Bernie it's obvious he'd be far ahead of where Hillary is. Far more inspiring politician and person in general. It's just impossible for Clinton to generate even a spark of passion in most.

No, he wouldn't. He had skeletons in his closet that no one bothered to air, one of the biggest being Sierra Blanca. Just because he didn't get hit doesn't mean he was squeaky clean, it just means they didn't need to hit him. There's a reason the GOP was trying to prop him up.

 

[TestOfTide]

And this is why. Who responds well to this?

Why should anyone take you seriously if you are willing to make a false equivalency between an experienced, somewhat flawed politician and a bigoted idiot with no experience who sucks up to Putin?

Would you like me to list all the numerous reasons they are not equally bad?

If voters really can't tell the difference between what a vote for Trump means or what a vote for Hillary means, then they shouldn't vote. This is one of the clearest contrasts between presidential candidates in a long time.

(And on the subject of choosing between being stabbed or shot, getting stabbed is way more survivable.)

No. See they are totally the same because Hillary said "superpredators" and dares to try to expand the Democratic Party to include more moderates.

 

[Armaros]

Her news becomes old news faster than Trump's. I can't think of any other reason why so many younger people fall into "they are both the same" trap around here. The Benghazi e-mail scandal can't still be that effective at bringing up negative opinions.

So why bring up her policy talk?

Policy is always going to get ignored over controversy.

 

[Jonm1010]

1. American politics is heavily polarized. There are very few true swing voters (can be persuaded to vote R rather than D or vice versa). There are a large amount of apathetic voters (can be persuaded to vote at all rather than abstain or vice versa). There are a number of papers on this I can link you to if you are interested.
2. Apathetic voters are persuaded to vote by positive enthusiasm, rather than negative pragmatism. See Trump hit himself isn't as effective at increasing your likeliness to vote as seeing Clinton offer appealing policies. This is one of the conclusions of the Democratic research that has formed the basis of the OP.
3. From 1. and 2., Clinton letting Trump hit himself is therefore less effective than Clinton trying to seize the headlines, and the adage of letting your opponent hit themselves belongs to a different political era when American politics was less partisan.



I disagree, unless we're talking specifically the last day or so.

This is already a unique election in that both candidates have negative favorabulity ratings so a lot of tropes get thrown out the window and while ideally positive enthusiasm tends to win over negativity and fear, the latter does still win elections.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of causality that makes your case?

The best you have done so far is to say that maybe she should of gotten more public between August 6th and now. But that still requires qualification. Though you haven't really clarified what that even means?

History shows these polls were going to tighten regardless. You are trying to make the case that they would of tightened less or even not tightened at all had she done X instead of Y. Even ending on the assertion that had she ran a campaign of positivity and spotlight hogging she would of been in an even better place. Which seems absurd given what we know about Hillary's abilities and how damaging Trumps own transgressions have been.

 

[Aselith]

Both side are equally bad: The poll.

Come on, kids, get it together

 

[Mizerman]

And this is why. Who responds well to this?

Considering that you went with the "both sides are bad" nonsense, I don't blame his reaction.

 

[joebruin]

Sounds like a portion of "the youth" vote in general. Voting based on feelings rather than facts.

These candidates aren't "equally bad" at all.

 

[Blader]

Lol are you kidding me? Whether or not you like Bernie it's obvious he'd be far ahead of where Hillary is. Far more inspiring politician and person in general. It's just impossible for Clinton to generate even a spark of passion in most.

So Bernie couldn't get ahead (much less far ahead) of Hillary when it mattered, but in an imaginary alternate universe he would be way ahead of where Hillary is now. Ok.

 

[Debirudog]

Who actually supported Mothers of the Movement? Who didn't give a shit about "alienating white people" when they allowed Gwen Carr to speak for the convention? Who went to Harlem to actually listen to the black community? Who decided to change their party idealogy because they believe civil rights is important?

Bernie didn't make the effort reaching black people as Hillary did. Period. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/how-hillary-clinton-won-harlem.html

My age group needs to wake up.

 

[Crocodile]

And this is why. Who responds well to this?

Both sides FACTUALLY aren't the same and it matters who wins. Trump is calling themselves the "Law and Order" candidate, wants more police in our neighborhoods and had no intention in calling for police reform, has disastrous immigration policies that have done nothing but inflame racial tensions, effectively wants to persecute if not ban a religious group, wants tax cuts that benefit the rich and white predominately, has no intention in fighting for voting rights, etc.

Clinton is literally the opposite on ALL those fronts and has a history of PERSONALLY fighting for minority causes. Trump on the other hand has PERSONALLY shit on minorities all the fucking time (housing discrimination, employment discrimination, Central Park 5, BRITHERISM, lies about Muslims, etc.) for which he never apologized and has never once fought for minorities as a means of repentance. The man literally started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. That's a thing that happened in reality!

If you want more serious replies to your posts, don't post nonsense.

 

[OriginalThinking]

Really?

She has a laundry list of baggage. Overblown? Possibly.

But compared to her predecessor? She has a lot a stuff to attack her for.

That's all very well, but I don't see any specifics beyond Benghazi (looks like she didn't do anything wrong) the emails (guilty of being IT illiterate) and her having given some speeches to Wall Street. What are the specifics that make her more untrustworthy than other politicians?

 

[Jonm1010]

Hear fucking hear.

I mean I guess if you like false narratives.

 

[AxelFoley]

Bernie would have been so much better. Too bad old people suck.

Same Bernie who said the most important vote is the white working class vote? That Bernie?

 

[DarkKyo]

So Bernie couldn't get ahead (much less far ahead) of Hillary when it mattered, but in an imaginary alternate universe he would be way ahead of where Hillary is now. Ok.

Even during the primaries it was well known that he'd do better against Trump. Bernie vs. Hillary and Bernie vs. Trump are two completely different races.

No, he wouldn't. He had skeletons in his closet that no one bothered to air, one of the biggest being Sierra Blanca. Just because he didn't get hit doesn't mean he was squeaky clean, it just means they didn't need to hit him. There's a reason the GOP was trying to prop him up.

His skeletons wouldn't matter compared to Hillary's. He's far more a man of the people, where as Clinton is a well known corporate puppet.