Clinton's Folly - The poupular vote (1 Viewer)

[wcklink]

As everyone knows, it's the electoral college that decides the winner of the presidential campaign. It seems like Trump's campaign got the message while the Clinton campaign didn't spend their money in the swing states but in Chicago and New Orleans to run up the popular vote.

So says politico, it was the brainchild of Donna Brazille.

How Clinton lost Michigan

"But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election."

 

[JimEverett]

In reading some of these post-election post-mortems on the Clinton apparatus - it is clear there was a certain arrogance about the people in charge. They seemed to almost always believe they were the smartest people in the room. Sort of a microcosm of some of the worst aspects of what the Democratic Party has become recently.

 

[efil4stnias]

In reading some of these post-election post-mortems on the Clinton apparatus - it is clear there was a certain arrogance about the people in charge. They seemed to almost always believe they were the smartest people in the room. Sort of a microcosm of some of the worst aspects of what the Democratic Party has become recently.

that can be said of just about any group in any industry. Confidence in abilities is sometimes misconstrued for arrogance.



I havent read a single post mortem, because, well i could care little about what someone else thinks "why". I have a good idea "why".

But both parties have folks that " are the smartest in the room".

 

[EagleSaint]

that can be said of just about any group in any industry. Confidence in abilities is sometimes misconstrued for arrogance.



I havent read a single post mortem, because, well i could care little about what someone else thinks "why". I have a good idea "why".

But both parties have folks that " are the smartest in the room".

Like Trump himself.

I don't doubt Trump is smart, but he needs to be brought down to earth a little.

 

[JimEverett]

that can be said of just about any group in any industry. Confidence in abilities is sometimes misconstrued for arrogance.



I havent read a single post mortem, because, well i could care little about what someone else thinks "why". I have a good idea "why".

But both parties have folks that " are the smartest in the room".

I don't know. But it certainly seems as if the national leaders in Trump's camp listened to "little" guys on the ground in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. in a way that the big guys in Brooklyn did not.

 

[DaveXA]

Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan was a colossal mistake on the part of the Hillary campaign...but, I think that's only a part of the problem. The other part of the problem was Hillary the candidate. Trump's shenanigans aside for a minute, Hillary was a fatally flawed candidate in several respects, and it wasn't just emails. There's a reason turnout among Democrats was significantly lower than other recent elections.

I think the lower turnout can be attributed to several things. One, Hillary was hit hard on the speaking fees for big banks issue. Bernie challenged her on this issue, and I think ended up hurting her. This was one of the key issues that won Sanders a lot of support. Her role as Secretary of State ultimately ended up being a negative for her because of Benghazi/private servers/problematic outcomes in Libya and Egypt. That was a minefield for her which, unfortunately overshadowed a lot of the accomplishments she had.

Another issue is a lot of people have already had their fill of the Bush/Clinton years, and felt Hillary would just be more of that, maybe not fair, but that's what people felt. I didn't understand the Democrats nominating Hillary to begin with.

And of course I haven't gone into their history when Bill was in office. Hillary didn't deserve it, but the Lewinsky scandal is still in the back of people's minds and that didn't help Hillary.

Another thing is she's not exactly the most charming person in the world. I could listen to Bill shoot the breeze, talk policy or whatever, but I always felt more disconnected when listening to Hillary. I think a lot of people got the same sense. What's a bit odd is that despite Sander's age, you could feel the passion he had when he was campaigning. It was contagious and I think a good reason he attracted a lot of young voters.

Of course this is all my anecdotal observations, but I think this probably explains some of why Hillary lost the election.

Ultimately, I have to blame the DNC for hitching their wagon with the Hillary train so early in the campaign. They really should have tried to convince Biden to run. I think he didn't run because he wanted to defer to Clinton. I thought she would easily beat Trump, as did many here. We certainly underestimated Trump, but I think a lot of us made Hillary out to be stronger than she actually was.

As everyone knows, it's the electoral college that decides the winner of the presidential campaign. It seems like Trump's campaign got the message while the Clinton campaign didn't spend their money in the swing states but in Chicago and New Orleans to run up the popular vote.

So says politico, it was the brainchild of Donna Brazille.

How Clinton lost Michigan

"But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election."

 

[efil4stnias]

Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan was a colossal mistake on the part of the Hillary campaign...but, I think that's only a part of the problem. The other part of the problem was Hillary the candidate. Trump's shenanigans aside for a minute, Hillary was a fatally flawed candidate in several respects, and it wasn't just emails. There's a reason turnout among Democrats was significantly lower than other recent elections.

I think the lower turnout can be attributed to several things. One, Hillary was hit hard on the speaking fees for big banks issue. Bernie challenged her on this issue, and I think ended up hurting her. This was one of the key issues that won Sanders a lot of support. Her role as Secretary of State ultimately ended up being a negative for her because of Benghazi/private servers/problematic outcomes in Libya and Egypt. That was a minefield for her which, unfortunately overshadowed a lot of the accomplishments she had.

Another issue is a lot of people have already had their fill of the Bush/Clinton years, and felt Hillary would just be more of that, maybe not fair, but that's what people felt. I didn't understand the Democrats nominating Hillary to begin with.

And of course I haven't gone into their history when Bill was in office. Hillary didn't deserve it, but the Lewinsky scandal is still in the back of people's minds and that didn't help Hillary.

Another thing is she's not exactly the most charming person in the world. I could listen to Bill shoot the breeze, talk policy or whatever, but I always felt more disconnected when listening to Hillary. I think a lot of people got the same sense. What's a bit odd is that despite Sander's age, you could feel the passion he had when he was campaigning. It was contagious and I think a good reason he attracted a lot of young voters.

Of course this is all my anecdotal observations, but I think this probably explains some of why Hillary lost the election.

Ultimately, I have to blame the DNC for hitching their wagon with the Hillary train so early in the campaign. They really should have tried to convince Biden to run. I think he didn't run because he wanted to defer to Clinton. I thought she would easily beat Trump, as did many here. We certainly underestimated Trump, but I think a lot of us made Hillary out to be stronger than she actually was.

this.

The Dems self-cannibalized in the Primary. Bernie hit a very poignant nerve in the electorate.

Each party has its own "party within a party " demographic and specifically within the Dems it seemed no one wanted any part of Hillary ( unlike the Rs who would ultimately support whomever was nominated ). Thats a big difference between the two sides imo.

 

[mb504]

“They believed they were more experienced, which they were. They believed they were smarter, which they weren’t,” said Donnie Fowler, who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee during the final months of the campaign. “They believed they had better information, which they didn’t.”

That pretty much sums it up.

The Clinton campaign made a clear mistake assuming that it was an absolute given that she would win Wisconsin and Michigan even after she struggled in those states against Sanders in the primary. They should have known that the white male union vote was not automatic given how much time Trump spent appealing specifically to that demographic and how little enthusiasm existed for Clinton from day 1. And if her campaign and the DNC want to blame the loss on Russian hacking or Wikileaks or James Comey or racism or whatever else instead of acknowledging that they made such critical mistakes that they lost to the worst candidate in modern history by slim margins in states that they ignored completely, history is bound to repeat itself. Winning the popular vote by 2% and losing the election anyway in "blue" states where the campaign didn't bother to step foot is an indictment on the campaign.

 

[Mojomajik9]

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.

Most importantly, multiple operatives said, the Clinton campaign dismissed what’s known as in-person “persuasion” — no one was knocking on doors trying to drum up support for the Democratic nominee, which also meant no one was hearing directly from voters aside from voters they’d already assumed were likely Clinton voters, no one tracking how feelings about the race and the candidates were evolving. This left no information to check the polling models against — which might have, for example, showed the campaign that some of the white male union members they had expected to be likely Clinton voters actually veering toward Trump — and no early warning system that the race was turning against them in ways that their daily tracking polls weren’t picking up.

This is embarrassing, but meshes well with the earlier leaks about Bill Clinton's suggestions of reaching out to disenfranchised voters being ignored and even mocked by Hillary's top advisers.

 

[efil4stnias]

I don't know. But it certainly seems as if the national leaders in Trump's camp listened to "little" guys on the ground in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. in a way that the big guys in Brooklyn did not.

guess campaign chaos does pay off lolol

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

The deplorables comment was the single greatest unforced error of this campaign.

It inspired rural voters all over the country to go out and vote against Hillary more than anything Trump could have ever done.

That cost her the election.

 

[J-Donk]

this.

The Dems self-cannibalized in the Primary. Bernie hit a very poignant nerve in the electorate.

Each party has its own "party within a party " demographic and specifically within the Dems it seemed no one wanted any part of Hillary ( unlike the Rs who would ultimately support whomever was nominated ). Thats a big difference between the two sides imo.

You know I got plenty of downvotes on this board for saying Tim Kaine was a horrible VP pick. She could have picked a progressive VP, and might be president. She needed someone to win over the more liberal millennial vote, and white blue collar male. That point really feeds into the hubris side of the Clinton downfall.

 

[DavidM]

The deplorables comment was the single greatest unforced error of this campaign.

It inspired rural voters all over the country to go out and vote against Hillary more than anything Trump could have ever done.

That cost her the election.

I think there's been far too great an inclination to pin the loss on any one thing, but I otherwise agree with you about that comment.

She didn't run a good campaign and I was surprised by that, having expected her camp to rally from the 2008 defeat, maximize their connections and resources, take the baton from Obama and the party, and really put together a strong effort. I thought the convention went well but the rest of it was unexpectedly flat, disconnected, and her messaging relied too much on attacking Trump.

 

[pmiceli]

Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan was a colossal mistake on the part of the Hillary campaign...but, I think that's only a part of the problem. The other part of the problem was Hillary the candidate. Trump's shenanigans aside for a minute, Hillary was a fatally flawed candidate in several respects, and it wasn't just emails. There's a reason turnout among Democrats was significantly lower than other recent elections.

I think the lower turnout can be attributed to several things. One, Hillary was hit hard on the speaking fees for big banks issue. Bernie challenged her on this issue, and I think ended up hurting her. This was one of the key issues that won Sanders a lot of support. Her role as Secretary of State ultimately ended up being a negative for her because of Benghazi/private servers/problematic outcomes in Libya and Egypt. That was a minefield for her which, unfortunately overshadowed a lot of the accomplishments she had.

Another issue is a lot of people have already had their fill of the Bush/Clinton years, and felt Hillary would just be more of that, maybe not fair, but that's what people felt. I didn't understand the Democrats nominating Hillary to begin with.

And of course I haven't gone into their history when Bill was in office. Hillary didn't deserve it, but the Lewinsky scandal is still in the back of people's minds and that didn't help Hillary.

Another thing is she's not exactly the most charming person in the world. I could listen to Bill shoot the breeze, talk policy or whatever, but I always felt more disconnected when listening to Hillary. I think a lot of people got the same sense. What's a bit odd is that despite Sander's age, you could feel the passion he had when he was campaigning. It was contagious and I think a good reason he attracted a lot of young voters.

Of course this is all my anecdotal observations, but I think this probably explains some of why Hillary lost the election.

Ultimately, I have to blame the DNC for hitching their wagon with the Hillary train so early in the campaign. They really should have tried to convince Biden to run. I think he didn't run because he wanted to defer to Clinton. I thought she would easily beat Trump, as did many here. We certainly underestimated Trump, but I think a lot of us made Hillary out to be stronger than she actually was.

Excellent post summarizing how Trump managed to win.

 

[porculator]

I really don't think Hillary would win those rust belt states no matter what she did.

Those states have gone to **** and its easier for them to just vote for vague "change" than to actually explore why they have gone to ****. It's also why they voted for Obama. They're just throwing **** at a wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan was a colossal mistake on the part of the Hillary campaign...but, I think that's only a part of the problem. The other part of the problem was Hillary the candidate. Trump's shenanigans aside for a minute, Hillary was a fatally flawed candidate in several respects, and it wasn't just emails. There's a reason turnout among Democrats was significantly lower than other recent elections.

I think the lower turnout can be attributed to several things. One, Hillary was hit hard on the speaking fees for big banks issue. Bernie challenged her on this issue, and I think ended up hurting her. This was one of the key issues that won Sanders a lot of support. Her role as Secretary of State ultimately ended up being a negative for her because of Benghazi/private servers/problematic outcomes in Libya and Egypt. That was a minefield for her which, unfortunately overshadowed a lot of the accomplishments she had.

Another issue is a lot of people have already had their fill of the Bush/Clinton years, and felt Hillary would just be more of that, maybe not fair, but that's what people felt. I didn't understand the Democrats nominating Hillary to begin with.

And of course I haven't gone into their history when Bill was in office. Hillary didn't deserve it, but the Lewinsky scandal is still in the back of people's minds and that didn't help Hillary.

Another thing is she's not exactly the most charming person in the world. I could listen to Bill shoot the breeze, talk policy or whatever, but I always felt more disconnected when listening to Hillary. I think a lot of people got the same sense. What's a bit odd is that despite Sander's age, you could feel the passion he had when he was campaigning. It was contagious and I think a good reason he attracted a lot of young voters.

Of course this is all my anecdotal observations, but I think this probably explains some of why Hillary lost the election.

Ultimately, I have to blame the DNC for hitching their wagon with the Hillary train so early in the campaign. They really should have tried to convince Biden to run. I think he didn't run because he wanted to defer to Clinton. I thought she would easily beat Trump, as did many here. We certainly underestimated Trump, but I think a lot of us made Hillary out to be stronger than she actually was.

This is an absolutely fantastic post.