|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public.
Ok, here's another question: do you expect that, knowing everything you know now, she would have been popular in office? Or would all her faults follow her in?
|
On November 30 2016 08:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Ok, here's another question: do you expect that, knowing everything you know now, she would have been popular in office? Or would all her faults follow her in?
Both? I'd expect Obama level approval ratings from her on average over the 4 years (not counting Obama's recent uptick this past year).
The scandals would probably die away very quickly, pretty much the moment the Republican Congress would have started to continue to block a Supreme Court nominees. Her faults I don't see going away though.
|
On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public.
Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect.
Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie".
And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image.
|
On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. But the converse is true as well and you can't read too much into it the other way. I just think it's notable divide between the candidate & public servant in terms of approval ratings even if it's a mix of reasons.
Her approval ratings tanked really hard due to the private email server scandal. It's not that it wasn't defensible (though it would have been), it was that she gave the absolute worst defenses and the most favorable interpretations events that she presented was that she was "merely" unbelievably technologically incompetent. I did read a lot of IT people saying they wouldn't vote for her because of just how poorly her team came off in the explanations. Plus some of the neverending memes about wiping servers off with cloths.
My opinion when Comey initially decided not to indict back in the summer was that he would have had her opponent been anyone besides Trump. There was probably sufficient evidence to convict, but not enough to actually find her guilty in a trial.
|
On November 30 2016 08:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect. Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie". And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image.
Yeah good points, but it's worth noting the favorability did ok until right (like 1 month) before her bid was formally announced. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html is another look that shows that pretty dramatically. Though as Nevuk says the Email scandal was most of that maybe (but a lot of the worst parts of the email server were only relevant after her approval tanked).
|
This is the sound of corps being in a position to pay more Americans more money.
As the labor union-backed Fight for $15 begins yet another nationwide strike on November 29, I have a simple message for the protest organizers and the reporters covering them: I told you so.
...
In 2013, when the Fight for $15 was still in its growth stage, I and others warned that union demands for a much higher minimum wage would force businesses with small profit margins to replace full-service employees with costly investments in self-service alternatives. At the time, labor groups accused business owners of crying wolf. It turns out the wolf was real.
Earlier this month, McDonald’s announced the nationwide roll-out of touchscreen self-service kiosks. In a video the company released to showcase the new customer experience, it’s striking to see employees who once would have managed a cash register now reduced to monitoring a customer’s choices at an iPad-style kiosk.
It’s not just McDonald’s that has embraced job-replacing technology. Numerous restaurant chains (both quick service and full service) have looked to computer tablets as a solution for rising labor costs that won’t adversely impact the customer’s experience. Eatsa, a fully-automated restaurant concept, now has five locations—all in cities or states that have embraced a $15 minimum wage. And in a scene stolen from The Jetsons, the Starship delivery robot is now navigating the streets of San Francisco with groceries and other consumer goods. The company’s founder pointed to a rising minimum wage as a key factor driving the growth of his automated delivery business.
Forbes
|
On November 30 2016 08:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect. Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie". And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image. Yeah good points, but it's worth noting the favorability did ok until right (like 1 month) before her bid was formally announced. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html is another look that shows that pretty dramatically. Though as Nevuk says the Email scandal was most of that maybe (but a lot of the worst parts of the email server were only relevant after her approval tanked).
I don't know. I guess its because no one cared before? People tend not to change their opinion of someone if that person isn't actively engaged in anything. Once her election bid started people looked back and started to adjust their opinions?
Donno what else it would be.
|
On November 30 2016 08:22 Doodsmack wrote:This is the sound of corps being in a position to pay more Americans more money. Show nested quote +As the labor union-backed Fight for $15 begins yet another nationwide strike on November 29, I have a simple message for the protest organizers and the reporters covering them: I told you so.
...
In 2013, when the Fight for $15 was still in its growth stage, I and others warned that union demands for a much higher minimum wage would force businesses with small profit margins to replace full-service employees with costly investments in self-service alternatives. At the time, labor groups accused business owners of crying wolf. It turns out the wolf was real.
Earlier this month, McDonald’s announced the nationwide roll-out of touchscreen self-service kiosks. In a video the company released to showcase the new customer experience, it’s striking to see employees who once would have managed a cash register now reduced to monitoring a customer’s choices at an iPad-style kiosk.
It’s not just McDonald’s that has embraced job-replacing technology. Numerous restaurant chains (both quick service and full service) have looked to computer tablets as a solution for rising labor costs that won’t adversely impact the customer’s experience. Eatsa, a fully-automated restaurant concept, now has five locations—all in cities or states that have embraced a $15 minimum wage. And in a scene stolen from The Jetsons, the Starship delivery robot is now navigating the streets of San Francisco with groceries and other consumer goods. The company’s founder pointed to a rising minimum wage as a key factor driving the growth of his automated delivery business. Forbes
How many of the people who would be made redundant by this are on welfare even with their jobs?
Paying people a salary so low they still need full welfare support to stay alive is just a public subsidy of the company (see Walmart for example, where many employees are still on food stamps, which they then spend at Walmart...)
And yes I understand that is little comfort for those who end up getting fired.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Another thing that really hurt Clinton was her failure with the left crowd. The DNC favoritism was pretty bad, but the leaks made it so much worse. That, coupled with how little she actually wanted to cater to those groups, made them vote not-Hillary or not vote. I'd say there could easily be ten million or so GH-like folk out there who she royally pissed off with the DNC dealings (including employing DWS...wtf?). That would be enough to swing the election, easily.
|
On November 30 2016 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:20 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 08:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect. Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie". And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image. Yeah good points, but it's worth noting the favorability did ok until right (like 1 month) before her bid was formally announced. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html is another look that shows that pretty dramatically. Though as Nevuk says the Email scandal was most of that maybe (but a lot of the worst parts of the email server were only relevant after her approval tanked). I don't know. I guess its because no one cared before? People tend not to change their opinion of someone if that person isn't actively engaged in anything. Once her election bid started people looked back and started to adjust their opinions? Donno what else it would be.
Yeah probably that in large part. My overall point in bringing up approval has just been the oddity of Clinton's campaign and a lot of how we got to her running a campaign quoting Trump a lot. Especially to how her approval rating early on when she was running a civilized primary was about the same as the campaign she's being criticized for (especially as during then the whole e-mail thing was prominent, but not in the same way) and if policy talk was really going to make a difference you may expect some sort of drift back towards her approval rating while she held office during the primary.
@Legallord how many of those voters are in swing states though? Like I know Bernie was popular in those areas, but there's a difference between than and the type of voter who would abstain from voting (or vote Trump) because of that. I do agree it's yet another area that could have made up the difference though (there's like at least 4-5 bits that Clinton could have won with if it went the other way).
|
On November 30 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote:
Another thing that really hurt Clinton was her failure with the left crowd. The DNC favoritism was pretty bad, but the leaks made it so much worse. That, coupled with how little she actually wanted to cater to those groups, made them vote not-Hillary or not vote. I'd say there could easily be ten million or so GH-like folk out there who she royally pissed off with the DNC dealings (including employing DWS...wtf?). That would be enough to swing the election, easily.
Getting DWS in the day after she gets outed as chair is probably the most mind boggling move made by the Clinton camp in the election.
Rewarding her for her work after the elections, fine but they didn't even wait for the news about her outing to cool off.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 30 2016 08:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:25 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:20 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 08:17 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Some big consequences of the Foreign Policy under Hillary did not crop up until after she left office. And then there was the long smear campaign as the Republicans sought to discredit her at all costs (because they saw the Election run coming) with however many Benghazi commitees ect. Her decline in popularity is a case study in showing that enough dirt thrown can make anything look bad, even if non of it ever sticks. Just look at how many debunked 'Hillary is dirty' stories kept propping up during the election. Tell a lie often enough and people will start believing it. "Because surely it wouldn't be told so often if its a lie". And she lacks the charisma to prop up her image. Yeah good points, but it's worth noting the favorability did ok until right (like 1 month) before her bid was formally announced. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html is another look that shows that pretty dramatically. Though as Nevuk says the Email scandal was most of that maybe (but a lot of the worst parts of the email server were only relevant after her approval tanked). I don't know. I guess its because no one cared before? People tend not to change their opinion of someone if that person isn't actively engaged in anything. Once her election bid started people looked back and started to adjust their opinions? Donno what else it would be. @Legallord how many of those voters are in swing states though? Like I know Bernie was popular in those areas, but there's a difference between than and the type of voter who would abstain from voting (or vote Trump) because of that. I do agree it's yet another area that could have made up the difference though (there's like at least 4-5 bits that Clinton could have won with if it went the other way).
Enough. Not voting is primarily a youth decision, and there's plenty of those everywhere. Then we have the independents who don't like Trump but would vote for a candidate who doesn't piss them off as much as she did. And the union folk, who feel betrayed by the fact that their unions mostly abandoned them and make deals with Clinton that don't help them. I think there's plenty of good votes in there that were lost, more than just enough to tip the scales but enough to have a big margin.
We can't guess what the thought process of everyone who voted is. But the Sanders fanbase was big and had far too many people who were rightfully pissed off at Hillary. Their choice was not to vote for a candidate they hated.
|
On November 30 2016 08:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:10 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:45 Logo wrote:On November 30 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
No, she absolutely could have talked policy instead of pushing the "racist sexist xenophobic Hitler" narrative as far as it could possibly go. She had policies that could convince people if she tried. But someone thought that "half the people who vote for my opponents are just stupid fags" was a smart approach to this election tells you how immersed in an identity politics and "my opponent is so bad that I can do what I want and still win" she was. That she could even think that that was a reasonable thing to say does give some insight into what kind of campaign was being run. How does this view account for Clinton's position coming out of the very well mannered and policy driven primary debates and speeches vs Trump's non-stop garbage fest primary? Like it's hard to entirely think Clinton had freedom to discuss policy when she spent a long primary doing just that, but ended up repeatedly losing ground to Trump even before things like the basket of deplorables. There was certainly an effect of Trump's bullshit passing by favorably through the media when the Clinton campaign wasn't prodding them. Like his horrible statements only seemed to really affect him in the polls when Clinton did something that put them in a contrast (like the debates or the DNC convention). Plus you know you'd think being a public servant for many years with a high approval rating (when holding office) would account for something in terms of showing policy. Overall I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but there's also underlying things here and it's a complex situation. This election was anything but normal or straightforward. She was a Senator in New York, a state which couldn't possibly be more friendly to her as a candidate if it tried. Other than that her history of holding elected office is remarkably sparse. Most people agreed that the debates did her a lot of good. I absolutely believe they did. I suppose it just turns out that people underestimated the rural vote to an extent we simply didn't consider. No one in the mainstream spoke much about the rural folk until after the election. Her approval rating while Secretary of State was pretty high as well. Plus her approval rating isn't that bad nationwide during her Senator term: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/She only has had bad approval ratings when tries to get a promotion. The beginning of her SoS term was a honeymoon marked by the status quo folks being really happy about a status quo FP choice. That sharp decline at the end is Benghazi, the first real well-acknowledged symptoms of a failure in Libya. Syria mostly fell into Obama's second term. If she stuck around her popularity decline would have happened while in office. That only accounts for a very favorable rating to a pretty decent one and it held at about that level until it 2016 presidential bid talks started to ramp up (early 2015). And of course there's many factors and its complex, but it's hard to just fully dismiss a decently liked politician in office from the hated candidate as a delayed realization by the public. Ok, here's another question: do you expect that, knowing everything you know now, she would have been popular in office? Or would all her faults follow her in?
personally, I think her overall popularity would be somewhat below Obama's. She's far less charistmatic which would lower it a lot, a bit worse spoken which would hurt some; hawkish, which probably wouldn't hurt her approval on average, and better at the nuts and bolts of work at policy, which would help some. She does better when she's not trying to convince the public of things.
|
On November 30 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea. When she chose an even less charismatic clone of herself as her VP, I knew that she was beyond compromise and that she was basically going to do whatever she planned on doing as president. Until then I was still hoping that she would offer some reasonable compromises on her platform that would appeal to a more leftist electorate. Nope. That was was easily the most disgusted I've ever felt about casting my vote. I can't even be upset I voted for the loser.
The moment they threatened our 2A and safety with open boarder policy they lost. White middle class women actually voted trump in and im positive that mindset had a lot to do with whats going on with EUs immigration.
Also take a look this tweet from Kaine Hillarys VP on the Ohio terror attack.
https://i.redd.it/6ixklz1trk0y.png
Unbelievable placing the blame on the officer to push an anti-gun agenda. This is the asinine mindset we would be fighting against for the next 4 years, what a relief.
|
He wasn't placing blame on the officer with that tweet.
|
On November 30 2016 08:53 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea. When she chose an even less charismatic clone of herself as her VP, I knew that she was beyond compromise and that she was basically going to do whatever she planned on doing as president. Until then I was still hoping that she would offer some reasonable compromises on her platform that would appeal to a more leftist electorate. Nope. That was was easily the most disgusted I've ever felt about casting my vote. I can't even be upset I voted for the loser. The moment they threatened our 2A and safety with open boarder policy they lost. White middle class women actually voted trump in and im positive that mindset had a lot to do with whats going on with EUs immigration. Also take a look this tweet from Kaine Hillarys VP on the Ohio terror attack. https://i.redd.it/6ixklz1trk0y.pngUnbelievable placing the blame on the officer to push an anti-gun agenda. This is the asinine mindset we would be fighting against for the next 4 years, what a relief.
you';re being an idiot and spreading falsehoods. and you only believe them because you're being sloppy and you hate the target so you believe bad things about them more easily, which is classic bias.
https://twitter.com/timkaine?lang=en
look at his twitter feed; at the time he made the tweet, it was just as reports were coming in and it was being described as an active shooter incident, so saying it was gun violence was entirely justified at that time.
In a later tweet he updates that the weapon was clarified to not be a gun.
You instead make the asinine and unfounded claim that he was blaming the officer. So this failure is entirely on you, please own up to it and apologize.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
Looking at the Twitter the only thing that catches my attention is that Kaine wants even more carriers, also known as overpriced boats that wouldn't be any good against any real country.
|
On November 30 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:
It really pissed me off how Obama tried to turn every shooting into an anti-gun talking point. He absolutely was being an opportunist each time and after a while I found it to be quite distasteful.
I think he got tired of having to go on tv and say how horrible it was that another shooting incident had occurred and so many lives were lost.
You try doing that a hundred times and see what you say. (not saying that's how many obama gave, using hyperbole)
I find your claim of it always being opportunistic to be unfounded and distasteful.
|
On November 30 2016 08:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote:
Another thing that really hurt Clinton was her failure with the left crowd. The DNC favoritism was pretty bad, but the leaks made it so much worse. That, coupled with how little she actually wanted to cater to those groups, made them vote not-Hillary or not vote. I'd say there could easily be ten million or so GH-like folk out there who she royally pissed off with the DNC dealings (including employing DWS...wtf?). That would be enough to swing the election, easily. Getting DWS in the day after she gets outed as chair is probably the most mind boggling move made by the Clinton camp in the election. Rewarding her for her work after the elections, fine but they didn't even wait for the news about her outing to cool off.
This move right here pissed me off more than anything else in her campaign. Hillary was so brazen and disconnected from the populace that she couldn't see it was a bad move to immediately hire and associate with someone who had just resigned in disgrace. Give her a spot in your cabinet after you win, use her as an on the low consultant, but god don't just rub it right in everyone's face. What the fuck was that, honestly.
|
On November 30 2016 08:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 08:53 Noidberg wrote:On November 30 2016 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On November 30 2016 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that Hillary was promoting the right policies to win anyway, even if she had focused more on the issues than she did. It's pretty clear now that running on the status quo was not a good idea. When she chose an even less charismatic clone of herself as her VP, I knew that she was beyond compromise and that she was basically going to do whatever she planned on doing as president. Until then I was still hoping that she would offer some reasonable compromises on her platform that would appeal to a more leftist electorate. Nope. That was was easily the most disgusted I've ever felt about casting my vote. I can't even be upset I voted for the loser. The moment they threatened our 2A and safety with open boarder policy they lost. White middle class women actually voted trump in and im positive that mindset had a lot to do with whats going on with EUs immigration. Also take a look this tweet from Kaine Hillarys VP on the Ohio terror attack. https://i.redd.it/6ixklz1trk0y.pngUnbelievable placing the blame on the officer to push an anti-gun agenda. This is the asinine mindset we would be fighting against for the next 4 years, what a relief. you';re being an idiot and spreading falsehoods. and you only believe them because you're being sloppy and you hate the target so you believe bad things about them more easily, which is classic bias. https://twitter.com/timkaine?lang=enlook at his twitter feed; at the time he made the tweet, it was just as reports were coming in and it was being described as an active shooter incident, so saying it was gun violence was entirely justified at that time. In a later tweet he updates that the weapon was clarified to not be a gun. You instead make the asinine and unfounded claim that he was blaming the officer. So this failure is entirely on you, please own up to it and apologize.
Even worse jumping the gun so to speak in a position such as his. I apologize though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
