Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    9,814
    Thanks
    742
    Thanked 1,894 Times in 1,520 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 450 Times in 425 Posts

    Default Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

    images.jpg

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com...good-campaign/

    Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

    This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.

    Loser

    This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

    No Message

    When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don't understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

    Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

    First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.

    Funding

    Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

    People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

    Political Connections

    Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

    Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

    Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

    Last Word

    I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

    If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,785
    Thanks
    569
    Thanked 700 Times in 548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 100 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Her campaign sucked - she used identity politics,and ignored the middle class angst Trump tapped into.

    She was a craven liar -her Email escapades are going to be legendary for how not to address a problem,
    but her actions of hammering hard dries /bleach bits /and deleting 30k Emails under subpeona were criminal

    She should be under a Special Prosecutor

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 81 Times in 59 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    This has to be one of the dumbest articles written in a long time. All Clinton had to do was get up to WI, MI and campaign a little and she likely would have won. She ran a horrible divisive campaign.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,798
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,044 Times in 704 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 76 Times in 69 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    images.jpg

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com...good-campaign/

    Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

    This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.

    Loser

    This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

    No Message

    When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don't understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

    Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

    First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.

    Funding

    Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

    People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

    Political Connections

    Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

    Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

    Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

    Last Word

    I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

    If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.
    Why is it you never offer the source of the "articles?"

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6,058
    Thanks
    2,946
    Thanked 1,418 Times in 1,202 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 101 Times in 100 Posts

    Default

    Her much-vaunted "qualifications" were nonexistent.

    Being a woman isn't an achievement.

    Marrying (and staying married to) a perjuring philanderer isn't an achievement.

    Being embroiled in scandals isn't isn't an achievement.

    Failing to get traction for a health-care initiative isn't an achievement.

    Pretending to be a feminist while viciously attacking Bill Clinton's female accusers isn't an achievement.

    Doing nothing of consequence in the Senate isn't an achievement.

    Losing the DEMOCRAT nomination to The Obama isn't an achievement.

    Accepting a cabinet post as a consolation prize isn't an achievement.

    Failing to accomplish any positive results for America while Secretary of State isn't an achievement.

    Failure to maintain cyber-security guidelines isn't an achievement.

    Colluding with Dirty Debbie to cheat Bernie Sanders out of the DEMOCRAT nomination isn't an achievement.

    Losing to a candidate that had half the campaign funding, almost no media endorsements, and a slim chance of winning isn't an achievement.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,798
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,044 Times in 704 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 76 Times in 69 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post
    Her much-vaunted "qualifications" were nonexistent.

    Being a woman isn't an achievement.

    Marrying (and staying married to) a perjuring philanderer isn't an achievement.

    Being embroiled in scandals isn't isn't an achievement.

    Failing to get traction for a health-care initiative isn't an achievement.

    Pretending to be a feminist while viciously attacking Bill Clinton's female accusers isn't an achievement.

    Doing nothing of consequence in the Senate isn't an achievement.

    Losing the DEMOCRAT nomination to The Obama isn't an achievement.

    Accepting a cabinet post as a consolation prize isn't an achievement.

    Failing to accomplish any positive results for America while Secretary of State isn't an achievement.

    Failure to maintain cyber-security guidelines isn't an achievement.

    Colluding with Dirty Debbie to cheat Bernie Sanders out of the DEMOCRAT nomination isn't an achievement.

    Losing to a candidate that had half the campaign funding, almost no media endorsements, and a slim chance of winning isn't an achievement.
    Wow, after that regurgitatation of talk radio's top talking points for the last eight years one would have to wonder why the majority of American voters, close to two million more Americans, voted for her if even one of them were true

    Think everyone outside of a conservative knows the answer

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    385
    Thanked 971 Times in 697 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 84 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.
    Excellent point. His back was against the wall and he fought the media off pretty well with that tactic.
    They
    are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.
    The NYT review of hrc's book pointed out that's exactly what Jimmy Carter tried to do with Reagan.
    Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton.
    The loss of so many congressional seats was a pretty good clue as to the dissatisfaction of Obama's policies. He was well liked as a person but his policies were too much of a departure from main stream America. Good for San Francisco or Portland values but they are aberrations of the overwhelming majority of America.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to aloysious For This Post:

    anatta (09-13-2017)

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,433
    Thanks
    362
    Thanked 8,476 Times in 5,530 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 605 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    What sort of nonsense is this? Some sort of strange attempt to elevate Trump?

    Hillary ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. I often ask lefties what her campaign was about - and most still can't give any kind of clear answer. Her campaign was awful.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    9,814
    Thanks
    742
    Thanked 1,894 Times in 1,520 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 450 Times in 425 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    What sort of nonsense is this? Some sort of strange attempt to elevate Trump?

    Hillary ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. I often ask lefties what her campaign was about - and most still can't give any kind of clear answer. Her campaign was awful.
    her campaign was about continueing whatever obama did AND painting the other guy as batshit crazy. Which is what a third term of obama is supposed to do.

    change candidate says we need change

    status quo candidate says thats crazy we are doing well.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to tsuke For This Post:

    anatta (09-13-2017)

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,433
    Thanks
    362
    Thanked 8,476 Times in 5,530 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 605 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    her campaign was about continueing whatever obama did AND painting the other guy as batshit crazy. Which is what a third term of obama is supposed to do.

    change candidate says we need change

    status quo candidate says thats crazy we are doing well.
    Her campaign was about nothing. "I'm with her" until Access Hollywood, and then just trying to run out the clock.

    This thread is indefensible. She ran a terrible campaign.

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6,058
    Thanks
    2,946
    Thanked 1,418 Times in 1,202 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 101 Times in 100 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Wow, after that regurgitatation of talk radio's top talking points for the last eight years one would have to wonder why the majority of American voters, close to two million more Americans, voted for her if even one of them were true

    Think everyone outside of a conservative knows the answer
    Go ahead and list her accomplishments.

    I dare you.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    385
    Thanked 971 Times in 697 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 84 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Her campaign was about nothing. "I'm with her" until Access Hollywood, and then just trying to run out the clock.

    This thread is indefensible. She ran a terrible campaign.
    The three things I can think of that she could've done better:
    1. The 'deplorables' thing was a mistake.
    2. She dismissed the email private server too long.
    3. She assumed the midwest was hers therefore no reason to campaign there. Just overconfident about the outcome.


    But compared to Trump's campaign???? Geez, how can a candidate run a worse one?

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,433
    Thanks
    362
    Thanked 8,476 Times in 5,530 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 605 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aloysious View Post
    The three things I can think of that she could've done better:
    1. The 'deplorables' thing was a mistake.
    2. She dismissed the email private server too long.
    3. She assumed the midwest was hers therefore no reason to campaign there. Just overconfident about the outcome.


    But compared to Trump's campaign???? Geez, how can a candidate run a worse one?
    Those are tactical things, all of which I agree with. But thematically, there simply was no "there" there. I watched that campaign every day, and I still have no idea what it was about. I don't think she even did.

    There was an arrogance to her campaign that really prevented them from seeing the forest for the trees. They got so caught up in Trump's negatives that they forget to put together a real message of their own. For anyone who was unemployed or struggling to make ends meet, there just wasn't anything they could latch onto in that campaign.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thing1 For This Post:

    aloysious (09-13-2017), FourDimensional (09-13-2017), Trump Diva (09-14-2017)

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks
    385
    Thanked 971 Times in 697 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 84 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Those are tactical things, all of which I agree with. But thematically, there simply was no "there" there. I watched that campaign every day, and I still have no idea what it was about. I don't think she even did.

    There was an arrogance to her campaign that really prevented them from seeing the forest for the trees. They got so caught up in Trump's negatives that they forget to put together a real message of their own. For anyone who was unemployed or struggling to make ends meet, there just wasn't anything they could latch onto in that campaign.
    This is the best review I've read on the book: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/b...n.html?mcubz=0
    It's a long read but I found it interesting. It compares her memoir to other presidential candidates' that lost.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to aloysious For This Post:

    anatta (09-13-2017)

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,159
    Thanks
    1,624
    Thanked 1,327 Times in 1,054 Posts
    Groans
    93
    Groaned 819 Times in 746 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why is it you never offer the source of the "articles?"
    Yeah, leftists do that shit all the time. Why don't you assholes source your material?
    Free speech is cool as long as it jibes with our program.

    -- The Left


Similar Threads

  1. I would like to compliment the Clinton Campaign
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-2016, 03:47 AM
  2. Clinton campaign in the pocket of Russia
    By Alice in Liberaland in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-14-2016, 07:00 AM
  3. Clinton Campaign: Sanders is a Jew
    By Face, Your in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2016, 07:58 PM
  4. Clinton's Next Campaign
    By Temp in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-01-2008, 04:30 PM
  5. Clinton Campaign says Obama is a Plagiarist!
    By Damocles in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 07:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •