|
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. |
On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it.
I think part of it was her identity politics strategy turned off too many people in the end.
One example is the democrat/Clinton support of black lives matter and the whole anti-cop thing.They already had the vast majority of blacks voting blue but I think they turned off many cops with that stance.Plus in the wider community cops overall are still pretty well respected.Overall it was a loss for them votewise.
|
On December 22 2016 23:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it. I think part of it was her identity politics strategy turned off too many people in the end. One example is the democrat/Clinton support of black lives matter and the whole anti-cop thing.They already had the vast majority of blacks voting blue but I think they turned off many cops with that stance.Plus in the wider community cops overall are still pretty well respected.Overall it was a loss for them votewise.
Even if it didn't cost them any votes (or let's assume even netted them some amount of votes, POC who felt in actual danger of cops going to vote for safety) the divisiveness played into Trump's us vs them narrative.
She made a similar blunder when she released the 3am phone call ad versus Obama. Not that she shouldn't have been supportive of the black community (she was hoping to get the POC coalition that supported Obama to similarly support her) but forcing divisiveness means that for every black vote she got out of fear, trump got a white vote out of anger and spite. She's not used to doing the POC dance of always being super respectful or else be tackled by cops.
|
On December 22 2016 06:54 oBlade wrote:
Wait, who am I the oBlade of?
For having opinions on politics and society too outside the mainstream? At least for Nebuchad's taste. I can't really see the likeness; magpie just really really thinks Bernie and aftermath were bad for the party.
|
GH was right: it seems that people who take the "Hillary didn't make mistakes that people say she did" folk live on a different planet from those that are criticizing her faulty campaign. It's just a completely different logic that each party puts forward. We have been going in circles for many pages now with TM and friends trying to prove that she had no choice but to lose to Donald Trump.
|
On December 23 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:
We have been going in circles for many pages now with TM and friends trying to prove that she had no choice but to lose to Donald Trump.
I haven't seen a single poster arguing this. Why the strawman?
|
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them.
|
Nice...hopefully they wipe all the data NSEERS compiled. Got to throw wrenches in the plans of the man who said he'd ban Muslims and monitor the ones already here - no matter if the "no that's just a negotiating tactic" explanation is true. Trump got elected on the sentiment of his exact words, and Obama is acting accordingly.
President Barack Obama's administration said Thursday it was ending a dormant program that once was used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men.
"The Department of Homeland Security is removing outdated regulations pertaining to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration Systems (NSEERS) program, with an immediate effective date," said Neema Hakim, a department spokesman.
The Obama administration halted use of the program in 2011. Hakim said the "intervening years have shown that NSEERS is not only obsolete, but that its use would divert limited personnel and resources from more effective measures."
CNN
|
On December 23 2016 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them.
I'm going to toss aside the "racism and sexism" claim because frankly, that's not worth talking about. Believe what you want, I have made myself clear on how idiotic I think this "identity politics" focus is.
Think about all the strategic errors associated with those "mistakes" to better understand what went wrong there.
Didn't appeal to the WWC? That's because of a clear focus on minorities and courting Hispanics when it turned out that WWC voters, both left and right leaning (including Bernie folk) actually mattered.
Comey letter? Maybe she should have better acknowledged her email issue a year ago before Comey acknowledged it for her. July made her look really, really guilty to most sane people, and before that she took the "I did nothing wrong" stance which no one bought. The letter was unfortunate but Comey didn't invent the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the campaign did no favors to itself by blaming the letter afterwards. And I have to say that the biggest, most disgusting thing from that letter was the Harry Reid response to it, which had a far, far bigger impact for me personally and how I will vote in the future than Comey's original letter.
If Russia hadn't been hacking for years, as a foreign government might be inclined to do, then you would have a fantasy scenario. The leak is the part that is somewhat novel, but to put it simply, it wasn't Russia that created the circumstances under which the leaks would be impactful. Russia didn't make the Sanders folk conclude that they were being conspired against, nor did they start the substantial disdain for DWS. Russia didn't put DWS on the Hillary team as a reward for a job well done then put Donna Brazille in her place as the DNC interim chair. If the situation weren't so fragile already then the leaks would not have happened. But perhaps most notable of all, Russia didn't start a stupid and short-sighted anti-Russian diversion campaign where it was "but Russia!" vs. "but the content of the leaks!" everywhere. That was the Hillary team, pure and simple.
All the "circumstances" of her loss are rooted in deep strategic failures.
|
On December 23 2016 01:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them. I'm going to toss aside the "racism and sexism" claim because frankly, that's not worth talking about. Believe what you want, I have made myself clear on how idiotic I think this "identity politics" focus is. Think about all the strategic errors associated with those "mistakes" to better understand what went wrong there. Didn't appeal to the WWC? That's because of a clear focus on minorities and courting Hispanics when it turned out that WWC voters, both left and right leaning (including Bernie folk) actually mattered. Comey letter? Maybe she should have better acknowledged her email issue a year ago before Comey acknowledged it for her. July made her look really, really guilty to most sane people, and before that she took the "I did nothing wrong" stance which no one bought. The letter was unfortunate but Comey didn't invent the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the campaign did no favors to itself by blaming the letter afterwards. And I have to say that the biggest, most disgusting thing from that letter was the Harry Reid response to it, which had a far, far bigger impact for me personally and how I will vote in the future than Comey's original letter. If Russia hadn't been hacking for years, as a foreign government might be inclined to do, then you would have a fantasy scenario. The leak is the part that is somewhat novel, but to put it simply, it wasn't Russia that created the circumstances under which the leaks would be impactful. Russia didn't make the Sanders folk conclude that they were being conspired against, nor did they start the substantial disdain for DWS. Russia didn't put DWS on the Hillary team as a reward for a job well done then put Donna Brazille in her place as the DNC interim chair. If the situation weren't so fragile already then the leaks would not have happened. But perhaps most notable of all, Russia didn't start a stupid and short-sighted anti-Russian diversion campaign where it was "but Russia!" vs. "but the content of the leaks!" everywhere. That was the Hillary team, pure and simple. All the "circumstances" of her loss are rooted in deep strategic failures.
The issue with the emails is that its obvious that nothing the emails said actually mattered to the people asking for them. They had already concluded that they disliked Hillary (for whatever reason they had to dislike her) and would simply use whatever negative sounding news to clarify their disdain even if the news was that nothing popped up.
There's a reason we don't have any emails of Hillary asking for or doing any of the things she's being accused of. The issue of the Comey email was not about what the content of the emails were (no one cared about another email that says absolutely nothing) but the timing in which he presented the email. To publicly state that he had another email that said nothing was simply to force a reminder on people who already hate Hillary to make a new round of social media postings about their hate for Hillary.
The content and facts does not matter to these people. They just want to feel justified in their hate.
|
Just because people may not talk about some things as much (like what went wrong with the campaign) doesn't mean they aren't aware of them.
They just tend to discuss them more in private.
Also, they don't make the news as much, so you're less likely to hear about the ones that have been done. Just as policy was ignored this election in favor of crazed rantings.
legal, some people do underblame the candidate, but you overblame the candidate and ignore some outside factors. Then both sides complain about the other misrepresenting things, and both sides are right in that, and also wrong in their own points.
and you may ignore kwiz, but the rest of us see him fine, and he made a valid point about you strawmanning.
|
The underblamers start with Hillary Clinton herself, and as the saying goes, shit rolls downhill. I would not be hard-pressed to find presidential losers more honest about the reasons they lost than her. It's interesting that everyone but the candidate herself is to blame for a loss that frankly should not have happened.
I did not feel the need to respond to kwizach's comment. I suppose you felt the need to mention it, but whatever floats your boat. I think I'm done responding to your "whole lot of vacuous empty statements" posts for that matter.
|
On December 23 2016 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 23 2016 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them. I'm going to toss aside the "racism and sexism" claim because frankly, that's not worth talking about. Believe what you want, I have made myself clear on how idiotic I think this "identity politics" focus is. Think about all the strategic errors associated with those "mistakes" to better understand what went wrong there. Didn't appeal to the WWC? That's because of a clear focus on minorities and courting Hispanics when it turned out that WWC voters, both left and right leaning (including Bernie folk) actually mattered. Comey letter? Maybe she should have better acknowledged her email issue a year ago before Comey acknowledged it for her. July made her look really, really guilty to most sane people, and before that she took the "I did nothing wrong" stance which no one bought. The letter was unfortunate but Comey didn't invent the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the campaign did no favors to itself by blaming the letter afterwards. And I have to say that the biggest, most disgusting thing from that letter was the Harry Reid response to it, which had a far, far bigger impact for me personally and how I will vote in the future than Comey's original letter. If Russia hadn't been hacking for years, as a foreign government might be inclined to do, then you would have a fantasy scenario. The leak is the part that is somewhat novel, but to put it simply, it wasn't Russia that created the circumstances under which the leaks would be impactful. Russia didn't make the Sanders folk conclude that they were being conspired against, nor did they start the substantial disdain for DWS. Russia didn't put DWS on the Hillary team as a reward for a job well done then put Donna Brazille in her place as the DNC interim chair. If the situation weren't so fragile already then the leaks would not have happened. But perhaps most notable of all, Russia didn't start a stupid and short-sighted anti-Russian diversion campaign where it was "but Russia!" vs. "but the content of the leaks!" everywhere. That was the Hillary team, pure and simple. All the "circumstances" of her loss are rooted in deep strategic failures. The issue with the emails is that its obvious that nothing the emails said actually mattered to the people asking for them. They had already concluded that they disliked Hillary (for whatever reason they had to dislike her) and would simply use whatever negative sounding news to clarify their disdain even if the news was that nothing popped up. There's a reason we don't have any emails of Hillary asking for or doing any of the things she's being accused of. The issue of the Comey email was not about what the content of the emails were (no one cared about another email that says absolutely nothing) but the timing in which he presented the email. To publicly state that he had another email that said nothing was simply to force a reminder on people who already hate Hillary to make a new round of social media postings about their hate for Hillary. The content and facts does not matter to these people. They just want to feel justified in their hate.
Yeah, no. The "classified emails mishandled" was a matter bad enough that even half-sane Hillary supporters were willing to admit was a pretty significant black mark against her. The people who said she did nothing wrong were given clear evidence that it wasn't the case.
As far as the leaks go, at least one Hillary supporter among us (Mohdoo) was convinced that the anti-Hillary folk were well-rooted in their criticisms, and I'm sure she lost lots of leftists on the DNC matter. People didn't make up their mind about not liking Hillary until they were forced to by her consistent inability to acknowledge that their votes were necessary. She thought she could win without them and to be fair so did everyone else, but her loss wasn't predetermined at all.
|
On December 23 2016 01:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 23 2016 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 23 2016 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them. I'm going to toss aside the "racism and sexism" claim because frankly, that's not worth talking about. Believe what you want, I have made myself clear on how idiotic I think this "identity politics" focus is. Think about all the strategic errors associated with those "mistakes" to better understand what went wrong there. Didn't appeal to the WWC? That's because of a clear focus on minorities and courting Hispanics when it turned out that WWC voters, both left and right leaning (including Bernie folk) actually mattered. Comey letter? Maybe she should have better acknowledged her email issue a year ago before Comey acknowledged it for her. July made her look really, really guilty to most sane people, and before that she took the "I did nothing wrong" stance which no one bought. The letter was unfortunate but Comey didn't invent the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the campaign did no favors to itself by blaming the letter afterwards. And I have to say that the biggest, most disgusting thing from that letter was the Harry Reid response to it, which had a far, far bigger impact for me personally and how I will vote in the future than Comey's original letter. If Russia hadn't been hacking for years, as a foreign government might be inclined to do, then you would have a fantasy scenario. The leak is the part that is somewhat novel, but to put it simply, it wasn't Russia that created the circumstances under which the leaks would be impactful. Russia didn't make the Sanders folk conclude that they were being conspired against, nor did they start the substantial disdain for DWS. Russia didn't put DWS on the Hillary team as a reward for a job well done then put Donna Brazille in her place as the DNC interim chair. If the situation weren't so fragile already then the leaks would not have happened. But perhaps most notable of all, Russia didn't start a stupid and short-sighted anti-Russian diversion campaign where it was "but Russia!" vs. "but the content of the leaks!" everywhere. That was the Hillary team, pure and simple. All the "circumstances" of her loss are rooted in deep strategic failures. The issue with the emails is that its obvious that nothing the emails said actually mattered to the people asking for them. They had already concluded that they disliked Hillary (for whatever reason they had to dislike her) and would simply use whatever negative sounding news to clarify their disdain even if the news was that nothing popped up. There's a reason we don't have any emails of Hillary asking for or doing any of the things she's being accused of. The issue of the Comey email was not about what the content of the emails were (no one cared about another email that says absolutely nothing) but the timing in which he presented the email. To publicly state that he had another email that said nothing was simply to force a reminder on people who already hate Hillary to make a new round of social media postings about their hate for Hillary. The content and facts does not matter to these people. They just want to feel justified in their hate. Yeah, no. The "classified emails mishandled" was a matter bad enough that even half-sane Hillary supporters were willing to admit was a pretty significant black mark against her. The people who said she did nothing wrong were given clear evidence that it wasn't the case. As far as the leaks go, at least one Hillary supporter among us (Mohdoo) was convinced that the anti-Hillary folk were well-rooted in their criticisms, and I'm sure she lost lots of leftists on the DNC matter. People didn't make up their mind about not liking Hillary until they were forced to by her consistent inability to acknowledge that their votes were necessary. She thought she could win without them and to be fair so did everyone else, but her loss wasn't predetermined at all.
My comment was just to why Comey became such a household name during the last week of the election. The other parts were strategic choices that had both backers and detractors (Bill Clinton supposedly fought with her campaign team on the regular due to their disagreements on strategy) but to the specific Comey/Email shenanigans, it was less the content of the emails and more the perception people wanted the emails to say that mattered; hence him doing a last second "but what about his other meaningless email" causing such a surge of free anti-hillary campaigning on social media.
But all the polls did have her in the lead (which is part of why they cut down on their GOTV spending on supposed sure deals.
|
Certainly, people may have been reminded of why they didn't like Hillary in the last few weeks of the campaign. But you know, she reminded them of that from the very beginning, so bitching about some relatively minor circumstance under which people were reminded of it was not all that important in comparison.
Also, do you think Lynch and Reid also contributed to the sentiment in their response to Comey? The former definitely mattered more than the latter for me personally.
"Cut down on GOTV because winning is assured" sounds brilliant. I'm sure some really solid strategic thinking went into that choice.
|
On December 23 2016 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
Certainly, people may have been reminded of why they didn't like Hillary in the last few weeks of the campaign. But you know, she reminded them of that from the very beginning, so bitching about some relatively minor circumstance under which people were reminded of it was not all that important in comparison.
Also, do you think Lynch and Reid also contributed to the sentiment in their response to Comey? The former definitely mattered more than the latter for me personally.
"Cut down on GOTV because winning is assured" sounds brilliant. I'm sure some really solid strategic thinking went into that choice.
I've had the argument given to me while campaigning for local politicians in CA. The strategist literally telling us that polls suggest we stop knocking on certain doors instead of hitting as many as we could.
It's a money saving tactic, move money from sure bets to resource less sure ones. The strategy didn't pay off despite being super close.
|
United States12190 Posts
Breaking news: Trump wants to expand and enhance our nuclear arsenal.
What a dangerous, dangerous little man. Bring back the arms race!
Curious to see how his supporters twist this one.
|
What's the problem with a better nuclear arsenal? Specifically, the US should work on better land-based nukes given that I've heard from people in the know that the US is pretty much relying on its submarines in the case of a Russian (since no one but Russia and the US takes nukes particularly seriously) first strike because they expect their land-based systems to be destroyed in the process.
If he means that the US needs to improve its first strike capability then he can fuck off. That isn't going to work nor will it end well.
|
On December 23 2016 01:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 00:56 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary made mistakes but I don't personally think she was terribly flawed. If she had just gone to the working class and said I feel your pain and I'm gonna bring jobs, she probably would have won. If Comey hadn't made a fool of himself, she probably would have won. If the Obamacare premium changes didn't occur at the beginning of November, she probably would have won. If there wasn't a cyber assault from Russian intelligence, she probably would have won.
And yes, racism and sexism were components in the vote. If you deny that, I'd like to remind you of some Trump quotes. He said those things not just to get the media spotlight, but because people believe them. I'm going to toss aside the "racism and sexism" claim because frankly, that's not worth talking about. Believe what you want, I have made myself clear on how idiotic I think this "identity politics" focus is. Think about all the strategic errors associated with those "mistakes" to better understand what went wrong there. Didn't appeal to the WWC? That's because of a clear focus on minorities and courting Hispanics when it turned out that WWC voters, both left and right leaning (including Bernie folk) actually mattered. Comey letter? Maybe she should have better acknowledged her email issue a year ago before Comey acknowledged it for her. July made her look really, really guilty to most sane people, and before that she took the "I did nothing wrong" stance which no one bought. The letter was unfortunate but Comey didn't invent the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the campaign did no favors to itself by blaming the letter afterwards. And I have to say that the biggest, most disgusting thing from that letter was the Harry Reid response to it, which had a far, far bigger impact for me personally and how I will vote in the future than Comey's original letter. If Russia hadn't been hacking for years, as a foreign government might be inclined to do, then you would have a fantasy scenario. The leak is the part that is somewhat novel, but to put it simply, it wasn't Russia that created the circumstances under which the leaks would be impactful. Russia didn't make the Sanders folk conclude that they were being conspired against, nor did they start the substantial disdain for DWS. Russia didn't put DWS on the Hillary team as a reward for a job well done then put Donna Brazille in her place as the DNC interim chair. If the situation weren't so fragile already then the leaks would not have happened. But perhaps most notable of all, Russia didn't start a stupid and short-sighted anti-Russian diversion campaign where it was "but Russia!" vs. "but the content of the leaks!" everywhere. That was the Hillary team, pure and simple. All the "circumstances" of her loss are rooted in deep strategic failures.
It's not identity politics when Trump was the birther king and said "there's something going on with Obama and the terrorists".
She certainly should have gotten out ahead of the email story a long time ago, though it would still have been a juicy story for the press, and Comey's letter was a spectacular thing in its own right, having more to do with Anthony Weiner than Hillary.
Having your dirt leaked by Russia is a very big deal. Just imagine if Trump's worst dirt was leaked - he is a rotten and corrupt person. Some of the content of the leaks was bad, but keep in mind there were drip-drop news stories leading up to the day of the election, some of which was trumped up sensationalism. When Bill Clinton is making bank on the side of his charity, it's not inherently bad, but that makes for some juicy headlines (which coincided with Comey's letter). And that's incredibly damaging so close to the election.
Certainly Hillary made some major mistakes though and hubris had a lot to do with it. Now compare her to Donald Trump. Who is the bigger buffoon? Want to hear some quotes? While Hillary's mistakes were real, she probably would have won in the absence of certain unique and remarkable events.
|
Trump had his own fair share of bad luck though. The Hollywood Access tape is one particularly good example. Was it deserved criticism? Yes. Was it unlucky that it happened? Yes.
Circumstances that are less than desirable always occur. But Hillary isn't alone in being unlucky at times. She just played it badly and lost bigly.
|
On December 23 2016 02:13 On_Slaught wrote:
Breaking news: Trump wants to expand and enhance our nuclear arsenal.
What a dangerous, dangerous little man. Bring back the arms race!
Curious to see how his supporters twist this one.
I am not against Nuclear proliferation. But that's because I usually assume that the President is able to maintain the principles of MAD to keep people safe. I literally am uncertain if Trump intellect, pride, or temper will win when it comes to deciding on a first strike. Every time I think that "this is the lowest Trump will go" I am continually surprised by him. I don't want surprises with nukes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
