General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can we put it to rest that Hillary was a "bad candidate" [View all]StevieM
(10,598 posts)She campaigned in Nebraska's 2nd district, along with many other states. And I believe NE-2 was +2 for Trump, while the national map was +2 for Clinton. So it was worth pursuing. She did better there than in North Carolina, certainly a battleground state, and also a place where she was consistently ahead until Comey torpedoed her.
Also, her efforts in the Omaha area were part of an effort in Iowa, part of which is in the Omaha media market.
As for Wisconsin, she spent more money there and had a larger organization than Barack Obama in 2012. She didn't schedule campaign stops because she was way up in the polls. At the end of the race, when Comey's actions made Trump think he could win, the first thing he did was CANCEL an appearance in Wisconsin.
In any event, winning Wisconsin would not have gotten her a victory in the national election. And there were never any circumstances under which she was going to lose Wisconsin while winning Pennsylvania or Florida and the loss in WI would prevent her from reaching 270. Her support collapsed at the very end to the point where she even lost WI and almost lost MN. That kind of collapse was always going to cost her PA, FL, NC and AZ.
I am worried that we will pick a candidate who feels the need to validate the talking points about 2016 and decides to ignore battle ground states like North Carolina and Arizona. And, yes, the 2nd District of Nebraska.