|
|
Post by casualobserver on Nov 14, 2016 0:51:01 GMT
Some of the stories starting to emerge from the Clinton campaign are hilarious. It has been claimed that they didn't bother polling Michigan for several months and when they finally did so a week before the election they discovered they were basically tied there, thus the last minute scramble. This is honestly the height of political malpractice, for a campaign so well resourced not to be checking their firewall states on a fairly regular basis is absolutely inexcusable. This would never have happened with the highly professional Obama campaign* who obsessively polled every state that was even close to being a battleground and then diverted resources accordingly. It looks increasingly clear that the blue wall collapsed through neglect as much as it did from enemy fire. *Apparently on the morning of the 2012 election Jim Messina spoke to Obama and informed him that he would win 332-206, which was exactly what he did. Even in the public polls, there were clear (if limited) signs at least a couple of months before polling day that WI, PA and MI would be crucial if the election was going to be tight nationally. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 14, 2016 0:55:10 GMT
Here's the incredible thing: the polls were never that hot for Clinton in Wisconsin! Consistent leads, yes, but not 'safe' ones.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 14, 2016 1:00:05 GMT
Some of the stories starting to emerge from the Clinton campaign are hilarious. It has been claimed that they didn't bother polling Michigan for several months and when they finally did so a week before the election they discovered they were basically tied there, thus the last minute scramble. This is honestly the height of political malpractice, for a campaign so well resourced not to be checking their firewall states on a fairly regular basis is absolutely inexcusable. This would never have happened with the highly professional Obama campaign* who obsessively polled every state that was even close to being a battleground and then diverted resources accordingly. It looks increasingly clear that the blue wall collapsed through neglect as much as it did from enemy fire. *Apparently on the morning of the 2012 election Jim Messina spoke to Obama and informed him that he would win 332-206, which was exactly what he did. Even in the public polls, there were clear (if limited) signs at least a couple of months before polling day that WI, PA and MI would be crucial if the election was going to be tight nationally. No doubt about it. I repeatedly said on here that I didn't think that the rust belt strategy would work but I did also say that it was Trump's only hope of breaching the blue wall. It really beggars belief that the Clinton campaign didn't recognise this and mount an adequate defence. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 14, 2016 1:19:42 GMT
Even in the public polls, there were clear (if limited) signs at least a couple of months before polling day that WI, PA and MI would be crucial if the election was going to be tight nationally. No doubt about it. I repeatedly said on here that I didn't think that the rust belt strategy would work but I did also say that it was Trump's only hope of breaching the blue wall. It really beggars belief that the Clinton campaign didn't recognise this and mount an adequate defence. They were probably more focused on getting a Senate majority. An unfortunate case of trying to run before one can walk, despite the election potentially being walkable. |
|
nitory
Conservative
Posts: 941 
|
Post by nitory on Nov 14, 2016 1:43:01 GMT
in contrast to major urban areas in the Rust Belt where urban black turnout often plummeted (with Wisconsin at least somewhat being due to the voter suppression). The idea that black turnout would plummet without Obama seemed to be proved wrong in places where campaigning took place, but right where it didn't. I've been doing an election postmortem over the past few days and in regards to black turnout in the rust belt cities, I wonder if the drop is as much due to a lack of an economic message from the Democrats as Obama being off the ticket. It's not hard to imagine Trump's rhetoric on free trade had some appeal to black voters in Detroit and anytime Clinton talked about these issues it was in a vague and nebbish way. The Trump outreach to black voters with the speech on inner cities was too ham-fisted, too late and his rhetoric beforehand had been much too divisive to pay dividends, but since Clinton basically conceded the economic policy realm to Trump, did those black voters just sit it out purposefully? Two deadly mistakes the Clinton campaign made in my opinion: - As mentioned above the campaign in the final months was bereft of any strong message on policies a Clinton administration would enact, there was nothing as simple and resonate as "GM is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead". Quite funny considering Clinton is a known policy wonk and Trump to put it kindly is an utter cretin on the details of policy. However, no matter how simplistic or like the ranting of a pub bore the solutions were, Trump had clear and forthright answers to the issues most important to voters; Jobs moving overseas - put a huge tariff on Chinese goods and repeal NAFTA, Immigration- The Wall, terrorist threats - ban Muslims from entering the country, Frustration at DC - Drain the Swamp - I'm an outsider. Clinton on the other hand focused all of her attention on attacking Trump personally and making it an emotionally based vote on character and temperament, such attacks could only go so far and they had reached saturation point by the time of the 'pussygate' tape. Also, attacks on the opponent are more effective if you are actually presented to the voters as a good candidate - not someone who's spent the past year under FBI investigation. The Clinton campaign's message to voters could be summed up as a Facebook video with Hispanic children talking about how frightened they were Trump was going to deport their parents set to the appropriately sad cloying music. The response voters of the driftless area, Trumbull county and all other mid-western rural and rust belt areas was 'we don't care, it's the economy stupid!'
- Identity politics and the extremely cynical way it was employed. Instead of being a strategy, it morphed into the campaign itself - too much talk of demographics, how Hispanics were going to turnout at 98% and vote 672% for Clinton making Florida and the southwest safe, the bragging of their 'amazing' strategy to the media of huge turnout among minorities and young people along with winning over college educated suburbanites*; WWC voters took from this that the Democrats didn't want or need their votes, they're too good for our backwards, uneducated support. Mix that with the idiots of twitter who proclaim with glee about demographic changes and old white people dying off in droves and what you get is consolidation of the white vote behind Republicans. Everything became a pandering attempt to win over this or that demographic that they forgot to speak to the country as whole.
*Which only worked in a significant amount in all the wrong states, Illinois and California were already safe, while Texas and Kansas were't ever voting for Hillary. Philadelphia had some weak swings in the burbs, in Detroit the small swing in Oakland to Clinton was more than offset by Trump winning Macomb handily, Monroe by over 20% and declining turnout in Wayne. The three 'C' cities of Ohio barely moved, with the blood red suburbs of Cincinati mostly holding their nose for Trump. The WOW counties in Milwaukee were a mixed bag with a decent swing in Ozaukee (the most highly educated of the three), minimal in Waukesha, and a minor swing to Trump in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 14, 2016 1:55:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Nov 14, 2016 2:07:53 GMT
I've had hours of fun these last few days reading the liberal American press.
It's a textbook case of progressing through the five (or seven, if you prefer) stages of grief : (shock), denial, anger, bargaining, Depression, (testing), acceptance. Quite a few are still only at the anger stage.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 14, 2016 2:37:28 GMT
I've had hours of fun these last few days reading the liberal American press. It's a textbook case of progressing through the five (or seven, if you prefer) stages of grief : (shock), denial, anger, bargaining, Depression, (testing), acceptance. Quite a few are still only at the anger stage. Hillary was apparently quite upset as well. To be fair to her, anyone losing an election they had significant odds of winning must be quite upset. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 14, 2016 7:46:28 GMT
Difficult to believe: "In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either." www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/ |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291
|
Post by maxque on Nov 14, 2016 9:22:32 GMT
No doubt about it. I repeatedly said on here that I didn't think that the rust belt strategy would work but I did also say that it was Trump's only hope of breaching the blue wall. It really beggars belief that the Clinton campaign didn't recognise this and mount an adequate defence. It sums up the arrogance and complacency that led to her defeat. I would say it points rather to the arrogance and complacency of her advisers and to her blind trust of them (which, in large parts, were the same than in 2008 primary). |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 14, 2016 9:54:42 GMT
Oh no it's all too easy to believe... |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 14, 2016 10:32:26 GMT
I don't care for Clinton, but what's the big deal there? Reacting like a normal human being? How awful!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,853
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 14, 2016 10:55:25 GMT
Difficult to believe: "In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either." www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/Given the utterly gigantic sense of entitlement possessed by HRC and her team, it is all too believable unfortunately. (a good comparision might actually be Dewey's 1948 campaign, which combined complacency and an uninspired "safety first" mentality) |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 14, 2016 11:16:20 GMT
Difficult to believe: "In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either." www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/Given the utterly gigantic sense of entitlement possessed by HRC and her team, it is all too believable unfortunately. (a good comparision might actually be Dewey's 1948 campaign, which combined complacency and an uninspired "safety first" mentality) Our rivers are full of fish. |
|
Malice the Red
Non-Aligned
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
Posts: 87
|
Post by Malice the Red on Nov 14, 2016 12:00:10 GMT
I don't care for Clinton, but what's the big deal there? Reacting like a normal human being? How awful! Because if she does anything, people grill her for it. But it definitely isn't sexism!  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 14, 2016 12:21:16 GMT
This is whats amusing about it. They're holding up traffic and pissing people off in LA and NYC, smashing up Portland and Oakland - all places that voted overwhelmingly against Trump. It's like if I was really pissed off with Labour winning an election and responding by going and trashing Harpenden @fraser once observed to me that a community gets the local pub it deserves and the bus shelter it deserves. He observed this when I showed him a phone box with a seat, a pen and notepad, airfreshner and dried flowers near my house. Unst must be nice. Or boring. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,995
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 14, 2016 12:22:57 GMT
Why do you even care? That's honestly the worst thing about you - and there's a lot to choose from! - the nasty obsessive pettiness.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,853
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 14, 2016 12:39:15 GMT
It is claimed in some quarters that one reason for the delay was that HRC had been so sure of victory she hadn't even prepared a concession speech  |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,635
|
Post by mboy on Nov 14, 2016 12:57:25 GMT
I don't care for Clinton, but what's the big deal there? Reacting like a normal human being? How awful! Most losing Presidential candidates have managed to give a concession speech in the evening of election day to their supporters, not sending someone out to tell them to go home because the candidate was too overwrought to give a speech until the next day. If it was bad for Clinton, imagine how bad it was for Gore, who had already had Bush ring him up and concede to him earlier in the day. Btf though he didnt concede for weeks afterwards! |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 14, 2016 13:18:50 GMT
It is claimed in some quarters that one reason for the delay was that HRC had been so sure of victory she hadn't even prepared a concession speech Neither had Romney to be fair... |
|
