General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton ran a great campaign and I can prove it
SNIP/
Hillary faced a general election opponent in Donald Trump who was criminally conspiring with a major foreign government to rig the election in his favor. She also faced a mainstream media that was intent on giving Trump a free pass by not vetting him, and free advertising by airing his rallies in full, because it didn’t want to lose its ratings cash cow. Finally, Hillary faced an FBI Director who went rogue eleven days before the election by releasing a letter which falsely claimed that she was under criminal investigation when she wasn’t. These aren’t excuses; they’re facts. And yet she still won the election by three million votes.
But she screwed up by not spending enough time in Wisconsin and Michigan, right? Wrong. She had those two states locked up, until James Comey sent his letter and frightened her least-sure voters into staying home. There was no way she could have anticipated Comey’s letter – and it came so late that there was no way to properly adjust strategy after the fact. Whatever you think Comey’s subsequent efforts to stand up to Donald Trump, the cold hard reality remains that he misled the public about a presidential nominee just days before election day, because he was assuming she would win and he was trying to cover his own ass for after the fact.
SNIP/
Meanwhile the media rarely aired Hillary’s own words, and instead spent most of its time lying about her emails. The media ignored Hillary when she talked policy, and only aired her when she went after Trump, and then falsely claimed that she didn’t spent enough time talking policy. Major news outlets gambled that they could spent the entire election scandalizing and demonizing Hillary while giving a free ride to her opponents, and that their ratings cash-grab wouldn’t impact the final outcome anyway. They gambled wrong. The media didn’t understand the impact of Trump-Russia collusion, and didn’t see the Comey letter coming. Combined, they all conspired to rig the election against Hillary Clinton.
Again, these aren’t excuses. They’re just the facts. If you’re not aware of any of the above, it’s because you were misled or you weren’t paying attention. Despite the media placing its thumb on the other side of the scale in both the primary race and the general election, Hillary Clinton won them both in multimillion vote blowouts. Despite Russia and the FBI trying to sabotage her, Hillary still blew out Trump. She ran a great campaign. The end results prove it. Anyone claiming otherwise is peddling fiction.
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-ran-great-campaign-can-prove/4810/
I posted sections to do with the general & left out the middle b/c it's got to do with the primaries.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign and I can prove it
SNIP/
Hillary faced a general election opponent in Donald Trump who was criminally conspiring with a major foreign government to rig the election in his favor. She also faced a mainstream media that was intent on giving Trump a free pass by not vetting him, and free advertising by airing his rallies in full, because it didn’t want to lose its ratings cash cow. Finally, Hillary faced an FBI Director who went rogue eleven days before the election by releasing a letter which falsely claimed that she was under criminal investigation when she wasn’t. These aren’t excuses; they’re facts. And yet she still won the election by three million votes.
But she screwed up by not spending enough time in Wisconsin and Michigan, right? Wrong. She had those two states locked up, until James Comey sent his letter and frightened her least-sure voters into staying home. There was no way she could have anticipated Comey’s letter – and it came so late that there was no way to properly adjust strategy after the fact. Whatever you think Comey’s subsequent efforts to stand up to Donald Trump, the cold hard reality remains that he misled the public about a presidential nominee just days before election day, because he was assuming she would win and he was trying to cover his own ass for after the fact.
SNIP/
Meanwhile the media rarely aired Hillary’s own words, and instead spent most of its time lying about her emails. The media ignored Hillary when she talked policy, and only aired her when she went after Trump, and then falsely claimed that she didn’t spent enough time talking policy. Major news outlets gambled that they could spent the entire election scandalizing and demonizing Hillary while giving a free ride to her opponents, and that their ratings cash-grab wouldn’t impact the final outcome anyway. They gambled wrong. The media didn’t understand the impact of Trump-Russia collusion, and didn’t see the Comey letter coming. Combined, they all conspired to rig the election against Hillary Clinton.
Again, these aren’t excuses. They’re just the facts. If you’re not aware of any of the above, it’s because you were misled or you weren’t paying attention. Despite the media placing its thumb on the other side of the scale in both the primary race and the general election, Hillary Clinton won them both in multimillion vote blowouts. Despite Russia and the FBI trying to sabotage her, Hillary still blew out Trump. She ran a great campaign. The end results prove it. Anyone claiming otherwise is peddling fiction.
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-ran-great-campaign-can-prove/4810/
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Without the crimes, hacking the DNC and election, etc., etc., etc., Trump could not have won.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
Thanks for always calling out on this!
46. Criminal conduct altered the election results. How much of the criminal conduct remains hidden?
Without the crimes, hacking the DNC and election, etc., etc., etc., Trump could not have won.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)If it wasn't for redumbliCON rigged gerrymandering and an outdated rigged electoral college she would be occupying the oval office
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We should ask Hillary and Al Gore if we live in a democracy.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
90-percent
(6,829 posts)that would be the last seven Republicans. Last one elected without cheating was Ike. Most colluded with the enemy in time of war in order to tilt the election in their favor. Or a corrupt partisan Supreme Court.
-90% Jimmy
brush
(53,767 posts)Nixon made a pardon deal with Ford so Ford also cheated.
We know about trump and W Bush, but what do you have on Daddy Bush?
PatSeg
(47,405 posts)on our political parties and presidential elections. Republicans are quick to assert that Kennedy cheated, but gloss over Nixon's and Reagan's dirty tricks.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)With Russia hacking the voter databases in a few states and changing eligible voters to ineligible, along w/ the GOP's disenfranchisement & voter suppression, was just enough to flip the election for Trump. They would not have been able to steal the election without the electoral college.
Response to True_Blue (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
mythology
(9,527 posts)
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)and they vote on election laws that affect Federal elections.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)It goes by counties (or districts) in each state, reporting their totals to the central collecting usually at the state capitol. Each state goes "red" or "blue" depending on how their counties or legislative districts voted. So we saw a really tight race like last year in which the close states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, maybe Ohio) were wavering and going red at the last minute. This was the point at which election hacking would have made (and DID make) a difference.
Once the state is declared for Trump or for Clinton, it means the state's entire set of electoral votes goes for that candidate even though the voting split was almost 50-50. Gerrymanded districts and counties have tipped the balance on many occasions.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Except for Maine and Nebraska, it's winner takes all. It doesn't matter how the votes are divvied up within the state. It doesn't matter what Congressional district a voter lives in. The presidential vote count is statewide.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What specifically leads you to allege that?
revmclaren
(2,515 posts)
X 10000000000
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Wishing a lie was true doesn't make it so, PA. And in this case, why on earth would anyone here want to do that?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Wishing something that isn't true doesn't make it so.
Would you rather Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote or had won
the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote. I'd pick the latter why would anyone here
want to pick the former?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It was formed to perform some functions that were then considered necessary -- but they are carried out by subverting democracy itself.
America chose Hillary. Choke on that truth and resentfully deny it to your deathbed, deny all information and refuse to read histories as necessary if that's way you choose to live the rest of your life, but the popular vote is the true vote.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that Presidential campaigns aren't designed to win the electoral college vote.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Despite all that, plus a 30 year smear campaign, misogyny on both the right and left, and the statistical improbability of a party holding the WH for more than two consecutive terms she STILL got more votes than any candidate but Obama in 08.
Anyone who calls that a bad result is the one in denial.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)brush
(53,767 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts) mcar
(42,302 posts)So true! But they aired every one of Twitler's rallies.
Then they complained that HRC never talked about policy. Some on this board made this complaint too. Pure BS. She talked policy all the time at her rallies.
Recall the debates: not one question about climate change, immigration, women's health.
They bear a lot of the responsibility for this and they'll never admit it.
Saviolo
(3,280 posts)They knew they'd get ratings airing Trump all the time, and damn the consequences. And now they're wringing their collective hands about being called fake news and the rise of white nationalism. Sorry, folks, but you did that to yourselves. Did they really think that Trump was going to treat the media well once he was in office?
Some interesting graphs to think about:
From Salon:
From WaPo:
From a Harvard study:
Full study linked here: https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)and town hall style events, and then they slammed her for never talking about the issues.
Hillary talked about the issues continually. A media that failed to cover the news as she made it, now absolves itself by claiming that the policy events never happened.
Lots of folks are probably safe from major approbation for a decade or two, but historians will not be kind.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)her Democratic opponents.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because apparently while others can talk about why their very real loss was due to all kinds of outside deliberate interference, if HRC does anything similar, she's "ignoring" that she made mistakes.
Because when she talks about Russia, voter suppression, misinformation, and yes, Brocialists, that somehow negates that she talks about the mistakes she made and said that it was on her.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)12. I wish we lived in a world where the difference between "explanation" and "excuse" was understood.
Because apparently while others can talk about why their very real loss was due to all kinds of outside deliberate interference, if HRC does anything similar, she's "ignoring" that she made mistakes.
Because when she talks about Russia, voter suppression, misinformation, and yes, Brocialists, that somehow negates that she talks about the mistakes she made and said that it was on her.
PatSeg
(47,405 posts)everyone jumped all over Hillary and itemized all the mistakes she made, but at the time I thought she ran a really good campaign. Obviously, there is always room for improvement, but compared to 2008, I thought she did an excellent job. The media coverage on Hillary and her campaign was pretty lame and the focus was often on her emails.
My primary criticism at the time was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her limited debates schedule during the primaries. After that, I thought the campaign was professional and effective.
Now I hear people on TV blasting Hillary and her book, saying she should just shut up and go away. This is the same media that treated her like crap for decades. I am amazed she stayed in politics for so long. My feelings about her have been mixed over the years, sometimes very positive and others quite negative, but right now I admire her more than ever. I say this as someone who was not a huge supporter of her as a presidential candidate, but accepted that she would be a competent president.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)PatSeg
19. After the election,
everyone jumped all over Hillary and itemized all the mistakes she made, but at the time I thought she ran a really good campaign. Obviously, there is always room for improvement, but compared to 2008, I thought she did an excellent job. The media coverage on Hillary and her campaign was pretty lame and the focus was often on her emails.
My primary criticism at the time was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her limited debates schedule during the primaries. After that, I thought the campaign was professional and effective.
Now I hear people on TV blasting Hillary and her book, saying she should just shut up and go away. This is the same media that treated her like crap for decades. I am amazed she stayed in politics for so long. My feelings about her have been mixed over the years, sometimes very positive and others quite negative, but right now I admire her more than ever. I say this as someone who was not a huge supporter of her as a presidential candidate, but accepted that she would be a competent president.
PatSeg
(47,405 posts)I remember Hillary in the early 1990s and I was so impressed with how candid and forthright she was. She didn't act or talk like a politician and it was so refreshing. However, the right and the media raked her over the coals because of it and she became a much more cautious and rigid personality, not as easy to relate to. I understand it now, but sadly, many do not.
Meanwhile, when she was Secretary of State, everyone seemed to love her. As soon as she ran for any kind of office, out came the daggers. Politics is a rough business I know, but it sure did seem like Hillary was treated more harshly than any of her male counterparts. Anyone who thinks (MSM for instance) that sexism wasn't involved, wasn't paying attention.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.
Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?
The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).
In other words, the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)129. About the "limited" or "rigged" debate schedule :
The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012.
Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.
Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?
The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).
In other words, the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
PatSeg
(47,405 posts)was that the republican candidates were getting all the media exposure, whereas the Democrats didn't even appear to be running. And there were debates scheduled on nights when they were apt to get very few viewers. I wish we had had more primary candidates at the time. It seemed like an unusually small group compared to previous primaries. I was not a Bernie supporter, my concern was as a Democrat who felt that the primaries were handled very poorly for the most part.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)
sheshe2
(83,746 posts) dlk
(11,558 posts)All of the petty sniping that she ran a poor campaign, doesn't know how to campaign, shouldn't have written a book, shouldn't have used email...it's all just more misogyny. We live in a country where one of the major political parties truly believes it's a crime for a woman to control her own body, and legislates to that end. We also live in a country where that same political party doesn't believe in democracy and legislates voter suppression. We have a long way to go.
nini
(16,672 posts)They have to keep the Hillary attacks going so we're not talking about the Russian effect and other problems..
I don't recall any male Presidential candidate ever being disparaged as brutally as Hillary has been for losing an election and I've lived through 11 presidents so far.
unblock
(52,199 posts)Response to dlk (Reply #22)
Post removed
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)I never heard the anyone demanding to lock them up for it.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... accessed by any corp employee !!
See the difference ... hunh? /sarcasm
Some of these retorts about HRC sound like like they're from a factory
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So no, she didn't lose. It was stolen.
And if you think the server is the only reason that the GOP would go after her, with apparent total support from the Brocialists on the left, you weren't paying attention during the Benghazi marathon, the flogging over her speeches, the fact that she didn't talk nicely about the women who slept with her husband, the accusations that she was personally responsible for her husband's policies when she was FLOTUS - when that wasn't any sort of deal-breaker for actual VP at the time Al Gore's candidacy.
When you say that Russian interference, voter suppression, the media covering the fake email scandal like it was the most important thing that ever affected the US, the spreading of 25 year old smears "didn't matter" indicates some real mental gymnastics.
Nate Silver said that if the election had been the day prior to Comey's announcement, she would have won.
So no, it wasn't the server she used that turned out to be way, way more secure than the State Dept server, and resulted in most of the senior staff being told not to use their State Dept laptops for highly sensitive information.
That's just a lame excuse to justify personal bias against someone who had the nerve to not slink away when she was told she was irritating. The "crooked Clintons" narrative has never, ever been proven, but that doesn't matter to those on the left and the right who will find any reason whatsoever to heap abuse on HRC, and convince themselves it's not personal at all.
It was that server, damnit - she was just stupid!!! I'm totes not being emotional!!!!!!!
YCHDT
(962 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)... which is about the foundation of what the criticism is based off of.
NAME ONE mainstream critique of HRC that didn't leave out gating factors ... just one !!
samnsara
(17,622 posts)...my hero. What she went thru publically is what EVERY WOMAN puts up with in private. Her sacrifice brought this misogyny up front and allowed it to rear its ugly head. So now we know... Thank you HRC! We didn't deserve you.
nini
(16,672 posts)The same people how vilified her back then are the ones screaming about the book now.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)KPN
(15,642 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)
Not to me.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
aikoaiko
28. Is that what constitutes proof?
View profile
Not to me.
unblock
(52,199 posts)She raised huge money, she was ahead in the polls essentially the entire campaign, at times by 10+%, she won all 3 debates, she had a better convention.
The story would have been donnie may have narrowed the race at the end, but despite incredible media attention and the email "scandal" she was so formidable that it was all he could do to save himself from losing in a landslide.
Saying she ran a poor campaign is results-mongering to an extreme.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,585 posts)If only her team had scheduled her to campaign there after the convention, and only if her team had accepted Bernie's well organized rust belt team's offers of support, the results would have been different, despite voter suppression and election software vulnerability, and billions in free, uncritical media for Trump.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)and the subsequent refusal by the Hillary team? I do not remember seeing that.
thanks
Fiendish Thingy (1,329 posts)
50. What a difference 30k votes in the rust belt makes, huh?
If only her team had scheduled her to campaign there after the convention, and only if her team had accepted Bernie's well organized rust belt team's offers of support, the results would have been different, despite voter suppression and election software vulnerability, and billions in free, uncritical media for Trump.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,585 posts)http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/rust-belt-democrats-saw-trump-wave-coming/
There's other stories out if you'd like to google them; Robbie Mook seems to get singled out as the one ignoring/rejecting offers of on the ground assistance from Sanders staffers, unions, and other rust belt folks ready to work their asses off to defeat Trump.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)unblock
(52,199 posts)The media has no interest in anything in between the extremes
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Atop what would essentially be a mediocre to poor quality message board post.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Michael Moore saw that gap in voter reach out.
As I've said before, she would be an excellent POTUS, but she was not the best candidate.
No, she didn't run such a great campaign, either.. You do know that she lost the electoral college, right?
Oh yeah,
FUCK TRUMP !!
Willie Pep
(841 posts)We can no longer assume that the Rust Belt will vote for the Democratic candidate in presidential elections and there were signs that the region was trending red with GOP victories at the state level before 2016.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And making some mistakes does not = bad campaign.
Lord knows that metric isn't applied to her opponents.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)First: That was a DIFFERENT election, big difference and we all know about the 3 mill votes..
Second: Idiot Trumpfuck made, IMO, mistakes every day during the campaign. He ran a horrible campaign.
Third: We need to figure out our Dem errors. So which is it?
A. HRC's campaign was flawed.
B. HRC was the wrong candidate.
C. DNC got caught with their pants down.
I'm just asking you to clarify.
George II
(67,782 posts)....you barely touched on the primaries here, in your last paragraph, and then only with respect to how the media played it.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)
brooklynite
(94,503 posts)Notwithstanding the impact of Russian interference, Clinton made several strategic errors that damaged her chances in the States that counted. I've talked to several State Party Chairs and they agree with each other on the errors made.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)the Comey intervention.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Lord knows that metric is not applied to any of those who ran against her.
Even when they actually lose.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Yes, she did.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Not campaigning to run up the score. Campaign resources would have better spent solidifying the "Leans Democratic" states we needed for victory, like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin - rather than trying to flip Republican states like Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana to drive up the Electoral College tally. Whether you have 270 or 350 EC votes the prize is still the same. A good campaign would have realized that.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Her team actually projected she would win 100% of the delegates from the cacuses at one point in time. It was in their campaign plan until the caucuses started and someone who knew how they worked decided to do their job and read the report the campaign was running on.
Lots of big guys basically working at political directors spending all their time glad handing big wigs and basically using the campaign to network for themselves and drum up more work. Meanwhile they have their mid level staffers taking care of everything. Problem is all the mid level staffers got their jobs as favors to the various high level staffers because of their connections not skills.
The only thing to be said for 2016 is that is was slightly less awful than 2008. But yeah her team failed her big time each time and she picked the team.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)I and dozens of other out-of-staters spent weekends on the ground there in September, October, and early November.
It was heartbreaking to witness and try to navigate all the obstacles that the working poor have to face if they want to exercise their right to vote.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)She may have done a little something in Missouri to help Jason Kander, the Senate candidate.
Campaigning in Arizona couldn't have been too bad an idea, seeing as how she was up in the polls out there at one point.
Hillary had an unbelievable presence in Pennsylvania. And Trump had also given up on Michigan and Wisconsin, assuming HRC would win them. He even canceled an event in Wisconsin in the final days of the race.
She would have won--decisively--had Comey not rigged the election.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)This article is from the end of October. The author wants to know why Trump is still campaigning in WI & MI. https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-is-donald-trump-in-michigan-and-wisconsin
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It doesn't address campaign advertising for the final 2 months, which is what matters most. Trump wasn't terribly focused in these places. It also doesn't discuss how many staffers were on the ground. I heard that Hillary had more staffers in Wisconsin than Obama did in 2012.
Hillary also made campaign stops in Michigan towards the end. Meanwhile, after this article was written Donald Trump canceled an event he had planned for Wisconsin.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Another good article on how the media mistreated Hillary:
The Media is Not Finished with Their Dangerous, Sexist Libel of Hillary Clinton
I'm not going to post excerpts because it would be (falsely) alerted & hidden because "refighting the primary." But they can't prevent you from reading it! 
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)NastyRiffraff
42. +about a million...
Another good article on how the media mistreated Hillary:
The Media is Not Finished with Their Dangerous, Sexist Libel of Hillary Clinton
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)has a great book on the 2016 presidential election called "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton". It's worth reading.
Here's another take on pushing the standard narrative in the hope of silencing the nasty, inconvenient woman.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/06/01/silencing-hillary-clinton-supporter
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
73. Gender Studies scholar Susan Bordo
has a great book on the 2016 presidential election called "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton". It's worth reading.
Here's another take on pushing the standard narrative in the hope of silencing the nasty, inconvenient woman.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/06/01/silencing-hillary-clinton-supporter
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dsc
(52,157 posts)literally got fired for watching his friend and coworker call Hillary a bitch and laugh. Now just imagine for a second, that he had done the same as the coworker called Obama the n word or Sanders a Hebe. Yea, we would still listen to a word he said, sure we would. It is OK to be sexist, this isn't the only proof you have gotten or will get but it is all you need.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Thinking you have swing states locked up and ignoring the SEIU and Obama's team when they call you with their hair on fire saying don't send those busses to Iowa.
In the end they had a team that wanted to listen to a computer when it came down to the vital final push. A great campaign manager wouldn't have wanted the ball, not given it to the machine. You need a great campaign manager to run a great campaign. In the end Hillary failed for the same reason she failed in 2008, it's the people she hires.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)The absence of a corrupt FBI director would have.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)More bodies where they needed to be would have pulled the votes we needed to win. The voters were their and the organizers were all in the wrong states. Without Comey would she have won, sure, but not having a bunker plan for an October surprise and not rolling with a new map in the aftermath is electoral malpractice. They really mooked it when they let the computer decided.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)HRC had a larger staff in Wisconsin than Obama did in 2012. She had an enormous ground operation in Pennsylvania.
Michigan may have had fewer, since there was no Senate race there. But winning Michigan would not have given her the votes she needed to win the election.
Where should she have pulled her troops from? Florida, which she came within a point of winning? Ohio, which was a traditional battleground state? You don't win elections by shrinking the map.
Besides, Trump had virtually no ground game at all.
Nobody let a computer decide, that is just a post-election talking point because it sounds fascinating to say.
You can make an argument that they should have immediately planned for disaster after Comey committed treason. But it is human nature not to be able to immediately accept the reality of such evil. And it is by no means clear that it would have made a difference.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)From one place, its about putting out the street money and hiring the troops you need. Pull less than $400k from her expanded map and it's done.
But yeah I'll say putting busses of SEIU workers into Iowa over their own objections, that was plain stupid.
Its not like smart people didn't see it coming and call them with their hair on fire.
Extending your suppy lines while on the defensive is a sure way to get routed and they did.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)trope.
And this sort of campaign critique is never applied to any other candidate in 2016, even those who actually lose.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And making some mistakes does not = bad campaign.
There would be no "good campaigns" if that was the case.
And none of the people she hired for her campaign caused most of her PAC staff to exit within the first week.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)
And when you are making vital mistakes that cost the White House you can't call it a great campaign.
Did they steal it too? Of course, but democrats have known since 2000 that they will steal anything that's close. It comes down to as little as a few hundred thousand spent in places like IA, AZ and North Carolina would have made the difference if it was spent right. The votes are there in philly but you need the street money same as Detroit. The votes were there, they didn't have the bodies to pull them.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Plus got one billion worth of FREE MEDIA. He called them in the mornings in his pj's for a f*ckin chat.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)They even knew Russia was in the mix. They decided to not let it change their race. It's an old trope by hack campaigner that you should run the race you want to run, it sound good but it's not a funtional paradigm. Sometimes when you see the lay of the field change you need to adapt.
What is damning to the campaign in that when the Obama team called and the SEIU called and both told them the same thing they decided to take the computers word over the experts. If you swap the folks at the SEIU for her team she wins. You swap Her team for Obama's people she wins.
People who are blaming Bernie miss one key point. The primary should have shown Clinton how unprepared her team was for an unconventional campaign. Clinton lost when she didn't get the wake up call and shake everything up. Leon Panetta was basically tearing his hair out over the need to retool a senior staff an inner circle because they just didn't get it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)gets called out on "blaming anyone and any thing but their campaign" on their loss.
And she really didn't lose.
Anyone who discounts Sanders statements and accusations in the validation of her demonization among the "left" just didn't get it.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)There is plenty of blame to go around. We live in a world of complex systems, thinking that a campaign that lost was run as a great campaign and that all fault lies elsewhere is absurdly simplistic.
Russia will be back and Republicans will always cheat, and we need to run real great campaigns not pretend losing efforts were good enough. Our candidate had great qualifications, a great vision for how to move America forward and a campaign that mooked the ball.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"the Obama team called and the SEIU called and both told them the same thing they decided to take the computers word over the experts."
So many so-called "universal facts" posited about HRC often turn out to be misinformation spread without any sort of fact checking on the part of those stating them as "facts."
The fact that you don't have or won't share your sources says a lot.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #177)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'll wait.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)was an ADVANTAGE, ffs.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you want to justify that in the name of anger at a candidate, own that.
nolabear
(41,959 posts)Gird your loins, because she's actually going to stick her chin out and the insanity will be hard to tolerate. So let's not tolerate it.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Yes, they did.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)
Post removed
joet67
(624 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And the lessons learned are what is being debated.
joet67
(624 posts)learn some valuable lessons, and are still "debating", God help us all.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If people here really think that, God help us all.
If someone thinks that debating to get to the real lessons to be learned is pointless, God help them.
joet67
(624 posts)I happen to think that's a foolish waste of valuable time. 18 has the potential to be a wave election. I'm focusing my energy on getting actual candidates fielded, and elected. Time's a wasting.
trueblue2007
(17,205 posts)HATCH ACT ??? doing political activity during work time.
Trump was under investigation at the same time and Comey said NOTHING about that !!!!
Comey is a traitor.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)
betsuni
(25,472 posts)
broadcaster90210
(333 posts)Period.
NT
StevieM
(10,500 posts)trueblue2007
(17,205 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)"Period"? As in everyone else can just shut up now? Lol. As if.
Anyway, why would anyone think we should overlook the crimes that took place related to the 2016 election? Bury your head in the sand if you must, but in the real world the investigations and ultimate prosecutions will proceed.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)And it kills me that a candidate who got more votes than anyone in history, save Obama, is called "unexciting". Women are never good enough.
Link to tweet
Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #83)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)We tell you we were and are still excited by HER! Guess some no wanna listen.
As you were.
WrightStuff
96. Raw vote totals don't really tell us a lot
If you want to compare elections, the percentage of the popular vote won would be a better place to start.
In any case, I suspect many of her votes were more about a protest vote against Trump than they were about excitement for Hillary.
Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #102)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)
what we saw happening coming from fake news, Russian bots/trolls and all that other fun stuff that happened to our nation last year.
Because we knew that people liked her when she was not running.
Because we saw some of the vitriol towards her and knew that it was weird AF.
edit: I forgot to congratulate you b/c guess who was not ignored by the media! People not excited by Her.
They were amplified.
Whereas people like me and many others excited by her for so many reasons, were basically ignored by the MSM.
105. There were also many of us who simply held our noses and voted for her
But I guess you don't want to listen to that either.
WrightStuff
108. The fact that Hillary has often been on the wrong side of history
When it comes to many important progressives issues isn't really up for debate. It's all on record. It's not fake news and it didn't come from Russian bots. Many people found her untrustworthy long before 2016. Some of us even remember how she treated Obama in 2008.
Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #106)
Name removed Message auto-removed
betsuni
(25,472 posts)What was it that smelled so bad? I'd like to listen to that.
Response to betsuni (Reply #107)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,999 posts)Your concern is noted.
Also (emphasis added) https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9577598
And keep them fighting amongst themselves instead of fighting for their class interests. I'm almost tempted to vote for Trump myself after reading that steaming pile of dung.
It's amazing really. You openly state that you don't care about certain people and their problems - that you're literally throwing them under the bus - and then you act stunned when they don't vote for you, and even have the nerve to call them racists and deplorables.
That strategy didn't work last time, and it won't work next time, no matter how much you double or triple down on it. No group is more important than the other, no group can we afford to throw under the bus. Keep this shit up and you'll drive the Democratic Party into the abyss.
"you"? "them"? Wright stuff?
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #111)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,999 posts)Further, the real identity politics players are the GOP and Trump and Bannon's alt-right.
The Democratic Party elected a white christian President born into the working class, a black Christian president from middle class and nominated a woman Christian from middle class for President.
By contrast the Republican Party elected three white male christian Presidents from the upper rich class and nominated two white male christians from the elite class, one of which was also from the upper rich class.
Then you have the nerve to come here and tell us falsely that Democrats are playing identity politics and have no concern about working class economics.
The only people doing gaslighting are the RepubliCons and their lackey media like Fox and Breitbart.
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #115)
Name removed Message auto-removed
betsuni
(25,472 posts)Response to betsuni (Reply #114)
Name removed Message auto-removed
betsuni
(25,472 posts)Our relationship was brief, but memorable.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)hay rick
(7,606 posts)I agree that Hillary (and America) was robbed- but that doesn't mean she ran a great campaign.
I watched her campaign staff pretty much every day for 5 months. I was camped out in our Florida county party's Democratic office working on GOTV and the local Clinton/Kaine campaign also worked out of our office. In that 5 month period, the Clinton campaign went through 3 area organizers. They spent the bulk of that time- all but the last 3 weeks- on voter registration and volunteer recruitment. The problem with the voter registration effort was that it was counterproductive in our red county. The problem with the volunteer recruitment effort was that they were calling the same people over and over and trying to get them to come into the office so they could make still more volunteer calls. I witnessed very little voter-id and outreach activity. The local organizers were unhappy but were mostly ignored and stuck carrying out the directives of higher ups. The campaign culture was very top-down and came across as arrogant.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)But her media policy was poor too - very little social media or rapid response. She needed to be more open and less controlled with the media.
See nyt op-ed in Oct by Obama's 08 social media director.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)to a number of mistakes. It was a B campaign when it should have been an A campaign. I do most of all agree with the damage done by the Comey letter.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Those most responsible for putting Trump in office are the for-profit media.
The biggest offenders: Jeff Zucker at CNN
And Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush at the NYT. Haberman is a Trump toady even today who prints what Trump wants to maintain her access to him.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)it was the Russians. Or James Comey. Or Bernie Sanders. Or her emails.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)While their opponent got a billion in free media to set his own narrative!
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)In any close election many changes would have changed the outcome.
For-profit media
Russians
Comey
Stupid coverage of her emails, not policy
GOP propaganda through the likes of Fox
Judicial Watch attacks
Clinton Cash / Breitbart attacks
All these contributed.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)While Donald got a billion or so in free media to set his own narrative.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)And the mere existence of voter registration suppresses the vote. That's why the GOP wants tighter registration and less early voting.
Yup. Lots of factors. Thanks for adding this one.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Does that go under "Russians"? I should have perhaps distinguished between "Russian hacking" and "Russian Facebook ads".
I might have ranked Comey first, but I get YMMV. Glad Bernie did not make your top seven.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Yup. Now we know the Russians were buying facebook ads. But we know Trump spent $85M on Facebook ads. What did those ads say and who were they targeted at? We don't know - they are "dark" ads that Facebook won't disclose.
There is going to be a major reckoning in America about campaign finance and secret data inside social media firms. A big shakeup is coming.
(Yes Comey / Chaffetz are probably the most proximate cause - if Chaffetz didn't leak Comey's letter, HRC probably wins. But if GOP billionaires hadn't given half a billion to Judicial Watch over a decade to assassinate HRC's character, she also probably wins. Hard to predict the Comey / Chaffetz factor, but we can do more to make sure America is aware of how GOP billionaires influence our politics).
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Obama ran great campaigns, for example. Clinton did not and she lost because of it.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)While their opponent got a billion in free media to set his own narrative!
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Is that where you want to be aligning your views?
Stay positive. Persist. Resist.
melman
(7,681 posts)Odd that so many can't deal with it almost a year later.
MrPurple
(985 posts)I gladly voted for Hillary, but "great campaign" is silly. She didn't visit Michigan and Wisconsin and wasted time on longshots like Arizona when her essential states weren't locked down. The emails weren't a big deal, but "do you mean like with a cloth" when asked if she wiped her server was a terrible answer. Some of the issue was sexism and certainly voter suppression and possibly hacking. But, if she had her husband's 1992 charisma and instincts, she would have won.
The Republicans knew she was going to be the nominee for 4 years and they were able to build her negatives through the reich wing media. Someone with Clinton's or Obama's charisma could overcome that. When the candidate is less electric, like Kerry or Dukakis, it's harder.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)While their opponent got a billion in free media to set his own narrative!
MrPurple
(985 posts)Hillary would have helped the people in WV more than Trump. But, she should have gone there and stressed that Trump is lying about being able to bring the jobs back and that she'll truly heop them with health insurance, job retraining, money for relocation for new jobs, subsidies to bring companies to their area.
She never would have won WV, but scoring a few percent higher among that demographic in Pennsylvania & Ohio could have helped. Trump is the antichrist, but he has a form of charisma to the low information people that he appeals to. There were lots of factors that led to the outcome we had, but saying that Hillary ran a great campaign is being what sports fan would call "a homer".
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)In the immediate aftermath of the campaign, both Clinton and her campaign staff, especially Podesta, vigorously disclaimed any significant personal responsibility for the loss, blaming it on a variety of "others."
Weird that the tune has changed for the book.
Raastan
(266 posts)janterry
(4,429 posts)First off, no one really can. We're still too close to the eye of the storm.........it will take time and perspective to really understand what happened.
Our job now it to figure out how we can win elections.
tomp
(9,512 posts)there is also the issue of actual vote manipulation, when exit polls don't match final vote tallies we should immediately suspect tampering. there are reports of the possibility of hacked machines. we know this has happened before.
all in all, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that the election was stolen via a multitude of methods.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)waltben
(31 posts)Stop making excuses. She lost the electoral vote. Get over it and start looking forward!
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)to make sure 2016 never happens again.
As you were dear DEM friend!
waltben
137. Just get over it already!!!!!
Stop making excuses. She lost the electoral vote. Get over it and start looking forward!
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Is this where you want to align your views?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... happened during last years campaign.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Obama in 08 TOTALLY negates that she did make mistakes and that the WH was stolen.
She also isthe only Dem candidate that is told to shut up about 2016, while others get to blame everything but their own campaign mistakes for their very real voter deficit, and are considered "leaders."
Why is that?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's not like we'll repeat history if we don't learn from it!!!
If I don't want to hear about it, it's IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the DEFINITION of BACKWARDS!!!!
SHUT UP ABOUT HER RIGHT NOW!!!!!
(Did I get it all?)
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)I'm so tired of hearing don't look back! Just like don't look down, it's nothing but a desperate cry of fear.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)You can't prove "good" or "great"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or write them a strongly worded email.
It might make you feel better.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)No need to get upset.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)
https://hecatedemeter.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/im-not-going-to-be-nice-about-this-shit/