It's a pretty good time to talk about how the previous DNC managed to lose against the "most evil and incompetent administration in the history of the united states" then, and how to avoid doing that in the future.
They weren't that yet, racism and xenophobia are sadly effective, and 3 letter agencies going rogue are rarely good for your presidential campaign.
Would you say there's no room for improvement on the part of the DNC? When losing an election to a candidate as bad as Trump, it doesn't make much sense to limit all blame to external forces.
For example, the tipping of the scales by DNC officials and party fundraising coordination with Clinton before the end of the primary, while perhaps not affecting the ultimate win over Sanders, may have been a strategic mistake in terms of turning off voters. Should the party repeat those measures next time with a favored candidate?
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty good time to talk about how the previous DNC managed to lose against the "most evil and incompetent administration in the history of the united states" then, and how to avoid doing that in the future.
They weren't that yet, racism and xenophobia are sadly effective, and 3 letter agencies going rogue are rarely good for your presidential campaign.
Would you say there's no room for improvement on the part of the DNC? When losing an election to a candidate as bad as Trump, it doesn't make much sense to limit all blame to external forces.
For example, the tipping of the scales by DNC officials and party fundraising coordination with Clinton before the end of the primary, while perhaps not affecting the ultimate win over Sanders, may have been a strategic mistake in terms of turning off voters. Should the party repeat those measures next time with a favored candidate?
Probably yes. US elections go on for way to long, but that's what it is, and for them to wait until August to start that sort of thing seems to be ceding ground for no reason.
Would you say there's no room for improvement on the part of the DNC? When losing an election to a candidate as bad as Trump, it doesn't make much sense to limit all blame to external forces.
For example, the tipping of the scales by DNC officials and party fundraising coordination with Clinton before the end of the primary, while perhaps not affecting the ultimate win over Sanders, may have been a strategic mistake in terms of turning off voters. Should the party repeat those measures next time with a favored candidate?
Hillary's campaign did do screw ups, no argument there, but I fear you're underestimating what forces were working against her with Trump. She lost primarily by not getting the right conservative leaning regions to vote for her, and that was always going to be a struggle no matter what nominee we had.
There's so many factors that go beyond this election that have to do with America culture and how entrenched racism and sexism is.
Obama barely held on to the people, and his reach was fading - if our best candidate couldn't get that loyalty Hillary wasn't going to earn it quickly in a few months. That's why it's important for the party to make long term plans to get these votes back, and come up with contingencies in case that fails again. Because the chances are good that the next president nominee will be a centrist so the party must be prepared for that (as well as plans for if a Far left candidate loses, who'll have their own flaws to iron out.)
Yeah, not a good look but I can't say they don't have bad reasons for being there rather than at a rally for symbolism. Symbolism is nothing if the candidates don't have a large treasure chest to back it up with. The more money in their coffers, the better their chances are they'll win those elections. That said, I agree the party does need to put a bigger priority on optics with symbolism for the left voting bloc. Unfortunately, I don't expect the centrists to learn much from this - then again, they have gone very leftward the last few years (backing Perez for DNC chair, for instance) so maybe they'll get out of that rut.
lol, I've been searching for this thread only to find it had decided to hide on the front page while I was on like page 3.
Anyway, the Crooked Media guys (Pod Save America/Pod Save The World/formerly Keepin' it 1600) have launched yet another new podcast called With Friends Like These: https://getcrookedmedia.com/with-friends-like-these-aeee91fa31da#.jlcypribw
It's basically Ana Marie Cox interviewing people from both sides of the political spectrum and trying to understand (though probably not agree with) one another.
I bring it up here because the first episode's interview was kinda interesting:
Ana Marie Cox talks with Pastor Christopher Jackson about why his Wisconsin community voted for Obama… before voting for Trump.
It's basically a talk about a pair of rural super-duper-white WI communities that went decently hard for Obama in 08, split Romney/Obama in 12 and then went super hard Trump in 16 and why that happened.
I think it's worth a listen, if for what is imo the subtext if nothing else. There's a few points where you can feel Cox holding back or actively yanking the conversation away from an obvious coming fight when they start really digging at what is going on and what it means.
The pastor's explanation when prompted begins with the economic anxiety argument essentially. It's a white working class area and it's been going to shit for ages and they went Obama cause he was gonna change shit and then Trump because nothing really improved much over 8 years and Trump said he was gonna change shit and bring back manufacturing jobs.
But it gets more interesting as she probes at the implicit assumptions here. He talks about how they are very tight-knit and insular and she correctly basically gets him to acknowledge without formally admitting that this is essentially throwing everyone who's not like them under the bus. They just didn't give a shit that he wanted to fuck over blacks and immigrants. Not their problem.
He keeps saying they really don't like him but they still seem to support him and don't seem to be all that worked up about the recent Trump activity, though he does say they mostly tend to express their opinion at the ballot box. They know about it he says, but they just don't talk about it.
There's an explicit acknowledgement of the power of right-wing talk radio over how they think which is, well, I don't think I need to explain what that means.
But the real doozy, the thing that really made me want to post this and discuss it a bit, is when they begin discussing why they voted Trump if they seem to really not like him, he notes that they don't like Clinton either and then completely unprompted he brings up the abortion issue. Like, bam, out of nowhere basically. And the big thing is that they probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with her if she'd been "more like Bill" on the issue and emphasized the whole safe, legal and rare and really lean on the last part. And he kinda really get into this a bit until she correct points out (right before she changes the subject to avoid the interview turning into a shouting match) that the real issue is that Clinton just wasn't ashamed enough of being pro-choice.
The whole thing is really interesting to me because as much as it's framed in terms of economics, there is imo a huge undercurrent of white christian conservative cultural identity going on here.
And also a very real implication I think that these people may well be incredibly reactionary voters who bounce from one side to the other desperately hoping for a solution that doesn't exist and return to a time and place that never existed, not just economically but culturally.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
...
Trump, who didn’t exactly run as a wonk, aired a more typical number of policy-focused ads compared with past elections. As an example, the study notes his first big TV buy was for an ad called “Two Americas” — one that portrayed life under Clinton’s immigration policies and one under Trump’s. The Clinton world is pretty bleak. Trump’s is rosy. In all, Factcheck.org gave it a so-so review, saying the claims were based on “murky evidence and misrepresentations.”
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
The worst part of this is that Hillary and the Dems had actual, substantive solutions while Trump had absolutely nothing in terms of concrete ideas, and they still went ahead with this strategy. It confirms the fact that no matter how bad the other guy is, the Democratic nominee must focus on a positive vision with tangible benefits for voters and not get distracted by shiny objects.
Sanders is a master at this, and even the people who dislike him need to recognize the strengths of sticking to a populist agenda that energizes voters instead of disproportionately focusing their ad dollars on attacks on the opponent's style (not even their substance) that typically lower overall voter turnout.
And there's a bit on the rust belt faceplant:
But the new report also confirms what multiple outlets have already reported: that the Clinton campaign did not appear to realize its vulnerability in the Rust Belt until the final days of the election and, as a result, blew millions that could have been spent elsewhere. Clinton’s team spent virtually nothing advertising in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania until the final week — when they then decided to exponentially increase their resources there.
The Wesleyan researchers write, with some understatement:
It may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.
The blown money on TV advertising in Arizona was exacerbated by a ground strategy that local Rust Belt Democrats have heavily criticized. As Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) told Vox in December 2016, the Clinton campaign appeared to do little to relate to Midwest union workers in the runup to the vote:
As far as I know, she didn’t stop at any UAW halls. I probably would have been invited to be with her if she was going to one, and I never got that invitation. She didn't do any labor-specific events that I'm aware of. It's pretty rare that you aren't working closely with labor in a campaign, especially for statewide office. I'm sitting right here now, talking to you in the parking lot of the sheet metal workers before their holiday party. I'm going to be with my friends, with the sheet metal workers, to convey that they are important to me by showing up at their events. Labor simply cannot be taken for granted in Michigan. Not doing that sort of event certainly was a major oversight.
Every time she go into policy wonk talk you could tell she was both more engaged and more naturally excited about the stuff she wanted to do. I was pretty upset they didn't lean into that harder. She's not boisterous rah rah crowd worker, she's a fireside chat kind of president.
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
You can defend it a little because Trump is such a garbage fire that the assumption slamming him would work better than usual was sound, if incorrect. Still a bad call.
+3
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
She has been viciously attacked since before I was born. She was embroiled in a scandal based in nothing for the year and a half or so before the election. She should have been leading easily, but there are more explanations than "the dems". Societal misogyny is one. Comey is another.
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
Of course, many people are loyal to a political party. It didn't matter that his favorability ratings were in the toilet when most of his disapproval came from Democrats who never would've voted for him anyway, and Republicans who also disapproved of Clinton (and would've disapproved of any Dem left of Webb).
Anecdotally, I was at my parents' house on election day, and they were trying to encourage me to vote Trump on my way out the door. They didn't like him, but in my dad's words he had to "vote his conscience." Only a few months prior he had been voting Kasich in the primary and laughing about how much of a ridiculous fucking person Trump was.
So I don't think it's really as simple as you're trying to make it out to be, that it was an easy landslide tossed away. No matter what strategy the Dems took (whether it is a winning one or not, whether it's with a different candidate or not), the GOP would've at least been competitive.
Studies on political science suggest that tribalism is far more important then policy. People will alter their policy preferences to stick with their party, not the other way around.
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
She has been viciously attacked since before I was born. She was embroiled in a scandal based in nothing for the year and a half or so before the election. She should have been leading easily, but there are more explanations than "the dems". Societal misogyny is one. Comey is another.
She was a candidate with a lot of baggage that was defended mostly because said baggage was unfair.
Which is cool and all, but it seems highly ironic that the people now talking of "whatever it takes to impeach Trump" ran such a flawed candidate just to prove a point. I mean, if beating the GOP and then Trump was so important, why she had to run again after 2008?
Policy proposals can get the base excited, though--especially if it's some sort of new deal that people can rally around.
Not really quite accurate. It's more how you talk to them that gets them excited.
You talked about Sanders earlier but Sanders appeal wasn't based around his policies but based around his rhetoric about those policies.
Whether it's the policies or the rhetoric about them that get people excited, the Clinton campaign underspent on letting people know what she was going to do for the country. We needed a New Deal and instead we got negative, personality-based campaigning.
It was a mistake, perhaps understandable given the nature of the election, but it should be recognized after the fact.
While I have no defense for the lack of policy stuff, the election really did swing 11 days out. More evidence for that here.
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
She has been viciously attacked since before I was born. She was embroiled in a scandal based in nothing for the year and a half or so before the election. She should have been leading easily, but there are more explanations than "the dems". Societal misogyny is one. Comey is another.
She was a candidate with a lot of baggage that was defended mostly because said baggage was unfair.
Which is cool and all, but it seems highly ironic that the people now talking of "whatever it takes to impeach Trump" ran such a flawed candidate just to prove a point. I mean, if beating the GOP and then Trump was so important, why she had to run again after 2008?
Speaking as a Clinton primary voter, I didn't vote for her to "prove a point". I, like millions of others, voted for because we believed she was the best choice.
And I don't think anyone could've predicted that Comey would've just happened to have "reopened the investigation" barely a week before the election, not when it was something that was already wrapping up, and hadn't borne fruit after so much time and effort spent investigating. If the timeline had been switched so that Comey's letter and the Trump Access Hollywood video switched places, Hillary would've won in a landslide.
I think there was a perception that Obama did a good job, things were going well, wages are improving (which is going to be frustrating if Trump gets the credit), so we didn't need much more than a continuation of existing policies and a competent leader to make fixes to stuff. Probably should have adjusted after Bernie managed to do as well as he did, but I think that was the base thought process in the establishment of the Democratic Party.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
...
Trump, who didn’t exactly run as a wonk, aired a more typical number of policy-focused ads compared with past elections. As an example, the study notes his first big TV buy was for an ad called “Two Americas” — one that portrayed life under Clinton’s immigration policies and one under Trump’s. The Clinton world is pretty bleak. Trump’s is rosy. In all, Factcheck.org gave it a so-so review, saying the claims were based on “murky evidence and misrepresentations.”
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
The worst part of this is that Hillary and the Dems had actual, substantive solutions while Trump had absolutely nothing in terms of concrete ideas, and they still went ahead with this strategy. It confirms the fact that no matter how bad the other guy is, the Democratic nominee must focus on a positive vision with tangible benefits for voters and not get distracted by shiny objects.
Sanders is a master at this, and even the people who dislike him need to recognize the strengths of sticking to a populist agenda that energizes voters instead of disproportionately focusing their ad dollars on attacks on the opponent's style (not even their substance) that typically lower overall voter turnout.
Sanders wasn't positive and he lost the Democratic primary by a lot.
Hillary was far more positive. And it wasn't at all close. Sanders vilified the establishment, Hillary, the rich, Wall Street, etc etc.
Here's from June, he defines his campaign through exclusion
This campaign has never been about any single candidate. It is always about transforming America.
It is about ending a campaign finance system which is corrupt and allows billionaires to buy elections.
It is about ending the grotesque level of wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing where almost all new wealth and income goes to the people on top, where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million.
It is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
It is about ending the disgrace of native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge, South Dakota, reservation having a life expectancy lower than many third-world countries.
It is about ending the incredible despair that exists in many parts of this country where – as a result of unemployment and low wages, suicide, drugs and alcohol – millions of Americans are now dying, in an ahistorical way, at a younger age than their parents.
It is about ending the disgrace of having the highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth and having public school systems in inner cities that are totally failing our children – where kids now stand a greater chance of ending up in jail than ending up with a college degree.
It is about ending the disgrace that millions of undocumented people in this country continue to live in fear and are exploited every day on their jobs because they have no legal rights.
It is about ending the disgrace of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year from preventable deaths because they either lack health insurance, have high deductibles or cannot afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription drugs they need.
It is about ending the disgrace of hundreds of thousands of bright young people unable to go to college because their families are poor or working class, while millions more struggle with suffocating levels of student debt.
It is about ending the pain of a young single mother in Nevada, in tears, telling me that she doesn’t know how she and her daughter can make it on $10.45 an hour. And the reality that today millions of our fellow Americans are working at starvation wages.
It is about ending the disgrace of a mother in Flynt, Michigan, telling me what has happened to the intellectual development of her child as a result of lead in the water in that city, of many thousands of homes in California and other communities unable to drink the polluted water that comes out of their faucets.
Or after Iowa
We do not represent the interests of the billionaire class, Wall Street or corporate America. We don't want their money. We will — and I am very proud to tell you, we are the only candidate on the Democratic side without a super PAC. And the reason that we have done so well here in Iowa, the reason I believe we're going to do so well in New Hampshire, and in the other states that follow, the reason is, the American people are saying no to a rigged economy. They no longer want to see an economy in which the average American works longer hours for low wages while almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1%.
What the American people understand is this country was based and is based on fairness. It is not fair when the top 1/10th of 1% today owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. It is not fair when the 20 wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America. So you guys ready for a radical idea? Well, so is America. And that radical idea is, we are going to create an economy that works for working families not just the billionaire class.
And when millions of our people are working for starvation wages, we are going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. And, yes, we are going to have pay equity for women. I've been all over this state of Iowa: We have spoken to some 70,000 people, and in meeting after meeting, I hear people standing up and, they say: "Bernie, I went to college. I graduated college — now I am 60, 80, 90 thousand dollars in debt." That is crazy. That is crazy. They want to get a decent education; they should not be punished.
His entire thing was always negatively framed. Essentially every single sentence is organized around a denial. It wasn't policy based as he ran for months before he came out with any substantial policy papers. Compare with a Hillary speech after she lost NH
You know, when I started this campaign last spring, I knew we were facing profound challenges as a country. The way too many things were going just wasn't right. It isn't right that the kids I met in Flint on Sunday were poisoned because their governor wanted to save money. It isn't right for a grandmother here in New Hampshire or anywhere else to have to choose between paying rent and buying medicine because a prescription drug company increased the price 4,000 percent overnight. And it isn't right that a cashier that I met here in New Hampshire is paid less than her son for doing the same work even though she's been on the job for more years.
Now, people — people have every right to be angry. But they're also hungry. They're hungry for solutions. What are we going to do? And that is — that is the fight we're taking to the country. What is the best way to change people's lives so we can all grow together? Who is the best change-maker? And here's what I promise. Here's what I promise: I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better.
Clinton also did better in Ohio and Pennsylvania than Sanders. The idea that Sanders better performance in the primaries, marginal in Michigan and non-trivial Wisconin would be sufficient is just not supported by math. This is especially true considering Sanders lost by nearly 20% in the primaries to Clinton.
Trump didn't win because Clinton wasn't positive or because she failed to be flawless. He won because he successfully tapped into racism and sexism and because the Russians and FBI ginned up conspiracy theories about the evils of the Hillary Clinton and the persecution complex of certain segments of Sanders supporters in regard to the DNC, which played into an incompetent media's preferred cynical narrative. Monday morning QBing about not campaigning in states that no one, including Sanders, thought they should be focusing on doesn't change that.
Trump didn't win because Clinton wasn't positive or because she failed to be flawless. He won because he successfully tapped into racism and sexism and because the Russians and FBI ginned up conspiracy theories about the evils of the Hillary Clinton and the persecution complex of certain segments of Sanders supporters in regard to the DNC, which played into an incompetent media's preferred cynical narrative. Monday morning QBing about not campaigning in states that no one, including Sanders, thought they should be focusing on doesn't change that.
Excusing missteps as inconsequential seems like a formula for repeating them. Should the next nominee spend the same unprecedented ratio of personal versus policy-based advertising dollars because it won't affect the outcome?
0
Options
Waffles or whateverPreviously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen"Registered Userregular
Trump didn't win because Clinton wasn't positive or because she failed to be flawless. He won because he successfully tapped into racism and sexism and because the Russians and FBI ginned up conspiracy theories about the evils of the Hillary Clinton and the persecution complex of certain segments of Sanders supporters in regard to the DNC, which played into an incompetent media's preferred cynical narrative. Monday morning QBing about not campaigning in states that no one, including Sanders, thought they should be focusing on doesn't change that.
Stop with this goosery please. We have the hindsight enough to understand that Hillary failed to establish a clear message and communicate to the rust belt states that saw little to no gains from the economic turn around after 2008. For example, lets compare two campaign videos.
Trump had a clear message and sold what he wanted to do. Clinton didn't.
Overall point I want to make is that Clinton didn't run a good campaign. They got over confident, cocky, and arrogant. Stop with the goosery of "Oohh. Only racists and sexists came out and voted Trump" because that's a ridiculous claim that cannot be proven with data.
Trump blatantly lied to the people in the rust belt. He told them he would bring back their jobs and that things would go back to the way they were before. He sold them an impossible dream and Hillary actually had plans for those people that would have trained them for the jobs that are actually needed. But that doesn't sound as good as promising the moon with no way to actually provide it.
We shouldn't be saying Trump did a good job because he was able to piss on their legs and actually convince them it is raining.
The problem is that as far as we can tell its those type of ads and not "policy ads" that drive people to vote. Obama gave people "hope and change" but he didn't talk about specific policies (much) in his ads. He talked about who he was and who America was.
Trumps ads were not successful* because they "included policy" but because they were tribal. The "policy" was incedental.
*if they even were; prior to the Comey letter trump has significantly higher negatives than Clinton.
It basically demonstrated the problem when Zombie Hitler could run against Jesus Christ returned to Earth and he'd get 45%. Means weird temporary reality distorting effects can swing elections to Zombie Hitler.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Trump didn't win because Clinton wasn't positive or because she failed to be flawless. He won because he successfully tapped into racism and sexism and because the Russians and FBI ginned up conspiracy theories about the evils of the Hillary Clinton and the persecution complex of certain segments of Sanders supporters in regard to the DNC, which played into an incompetent media's preferred cynical narrative. Monday morning QBing about not campaigning in states that no one, including Sanders, thought they should be focusing on doesn't change that.
Stop with this goosery please. We have the hindsight enough to understand that Hillary failed to establish a clear message and communicate to the rust belt states that saw little to no gains from the economic turn around after 2008. For example, lets compare two campaign videos.
Trump had a clear message and sold what he wanted to do. Clinton didn't.
Overall point I want to make is that Clinton didn't run a good campaign. They got over confident, cocky, and arrogant. Stop with the goosery of "Oohh. Only racists and sexists came out and voted Trump" because that's a ridiculous claim that cannot be proven with data.
Trump's clear message was white identity politics.
Sanders performed so well exactly because he was a negative candidate just like Trump. Because he tapped into the "fuck the system and everything" feelings that were going around a lot within the electorate just like Trump did.
The Democratic Party Establishments biggest mistake overall was not really getting these feelings because by any reasonable metric the US was doing well and Obama had steered the country well and was fucking really popular because of it.
Trumps ads were not successful* because they "included policy" but because they were tribal. The "policy" was incedental.
Any chance he may have been the only voice in the room (crazy or not) on the policy front and won by default because the Clinton campaign and the media were overly personality focused? They suggest that in the study:
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.
Their coding might have been weird, because I live in Michigan. Trump's ads were not policy focused at all.
Did you even watch the video I posted? He doesn't say shit like, "Go to my webpage and read my polciy." because nobody wants to do that. People are inherently lazy creatures. Donald instead sold a powerful vision that went something like, "Secure our borders, expand the military to keep us safe, bring back jobs". He was great at selling that vision. Its how he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennyslvania, and Ohio from Clinton.
I'm all for looking into the mistakes that Hillary's campaign made so that we can learn from them and improve our chances of winning 2018 or even 2020. We just can't do that as a party if we keep blaming select groups of people for carrying him to office when there are clearly signs/evidence of poor performance on the DNC's part.
I didn't watch the video you posted because I watched the actual Trump ads that aired here in the fall. They were not policy focused. They were banal generalities and incitement to hatred. Underestimating the power of white supremacy in a white supremacist country that has been dominated by white supremacist politics since its founding is silly.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Their coding might have been weird, because I live in Michigan. Trump's ads were not policy focused at all.
Did you even watch the video I posted? He doesn't say shit like, "Go to my webpage and read my polciy." because nobody wants to do that. People are inherently lazy creatures. Donald instead sold a powerful vision that went something like, "Secure our borders, expand the military to keep us safe, bring back jobs". He was great at selling that vision. Its how he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennyslvania, and Ohio from Clinton.
I'm all for looking into the mistakes that Hillary's campaign made so that we can learn from them and improve our chances of winning 2018 or even 2020. We just can't do that as a party if we keep blaming select groups of people for carrying him to office when there are clearly signs/evidence of poor performance on the DNC's part.
The problem in this is that the Democrats thought well enough of people that they thought they wouldn't be fooled by Trump's bullshit. Turns out assuming your supporters are good people and won't abandon you to save their hides when promised the moon by a living monkey's paw is a bad idea.
+3
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Sanders wasn't positive and he lost the Democratic primary by a lot.
Hillary was far more positive. And it wasn't at all close. Sanders vilified the establishment, Hillary, the rich, Wall Street, etc etc.
And these are bad things, how? You're not supposed to be the party of the country-club set and the CEO.
Here's from June, he defines his campaign through exclusion
This campaign has never been about any single candidate. It is always about transforming America.
It is about ending a campaign finance system which is corrupt and allows billionaires to buy elections.
It is about ending the grotesque level of wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing where almost all new wealth and income goes to the people on top, where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million.
It is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
It is about ending the disgrace of native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge, South Dakota, reservation having a life expectancy lower than many third-world countries.
It is about ending the incredible despair that exists in many parts of this country where – as a result of unemployment and low wages, suicide, drugs and alcohol – millions of Americans are now dying, in an ahistorical way, at a younger age than their parents.
It is about ending the disgrace of having the highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth and having public school systems in inner cities that are totally failing our children – where kids now stand a greater chance of ending up in jail than ending up with a college degree.
It is about ending the disgrace that millions of undocumented people in this country continue to live in fear and are exploited every day on their jobs because they have no legal rights.
It is about ending the disgrace of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year from preventable deaths because they either lack health insurance, have high deductibles or cannot afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription drugs they need.
It is about ending the disgrace of hundreds of thousands of bright young people unable to go to college because their families are poor or working class, while millions more struggle with suffocating levels of student debt.
It is about ending the pain of a young single mother in Nevada, in tears, telling me that she doesn’t know how she and her daughter can make it on $10.45 an hour. And the reality that today millions of our fellow Americans are working at starvation wages.
It is about ending the disgrace of a mother in Flynt, Michigan, telling me what has happened to the intellectual development of her child as a result of lead in the water in that city, of many thousands of homes in California and other communities unable to drink the polluted water that comes out of their faucets.
That's a great fuckin' speech. It's angry! It says things that most politicians don't say- "starvation wages", "highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth", pollution. Hell, it even mentions the Sioux Indians in Pine Ridge. When was the last time you heard a major candidate mention Native Americans in a stump speech?
His entire thing was always negatively framed. Essentially every single sentence is organized around a denial. It wasn't policy based as he ran for months before he came out with any substantial policy papers. Compare with a Hillary speech after she lost NH
You know, when I started this campaign last spring, I knew we were facing profound challenges as a country. The way too many things were going just wasn't right. It isn't right that the kids I met in Flint on Sunday were poisoned because their governor wanted to save money. It isn't right for a grandmother here in New Hampshire or anywhere else to have to choose between paying rent and buying medicine because a prescription drug company increased the price 4,000 percent overnight. And it isn't right that a cashier that I met here in New Hampshire is paid less than her son for doing the same work even though she's been on the job for more years.
Now, people — people have every right to be angry. But they're also hungry. They're hungry for solutions. What are we going to do? And that is — that is the fight we're taking to the country. What is the best way to change people's lives so we can all grow together? Who is the best change-maker? And here's what I promise. Here's what I promise: I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better.
This, on the other hand, is corporate-speak bullshit and listeners know it.
"hungry for solutions"
"we can all grow together"
"change-maker"
No one normal talks like that. She sounds like the corporate spokesperson that is sent in to lay workers off.
"Mr. Roosevelt is the only man we ever had in the White House who would understand that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch."- North Carolina mill worker, c1935
This is what won you the election in the 30s and it'll win you elections today, in the worst economic situation since the 30s. Sanders tapped into that and he came out of nowhere to seriously challenge the most experienced candidate in modern times. Imagine what you could do with a combination of experience and messaging!
Captain Marcus on
+11
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Sanders wasn't positive and he lost the Democratic primary by a lot.
Hillary was far more positive. And it wasn't at all close. Sanders vilified the establishment, Hillary, the rich, Wall Street, etc etc.
And these are bad things, how? You're not supposed to be the party of the country-club set and the CEO.
Here's from June, he defines his campaign through exclusion
This campaign has never been about any single candidate. It is always about transforming America.
It is about ending a campaign finance system which is corrupt and allows billionaires to buy elections.
It is about ending the grotesque level of wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing where almost all new wealth and income goes to the people on top, where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million.
It is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.
It is about ending the disgrace of native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge, South Dakota, reservation having a life expectancy lower than many third-world countries.
It is about ending the incredible despair that exists in many parts of this country where – as a result of unemployment and low wages, suicide, drugs and alcohol – millions of Americans are now dying, in an ahistorical way, at a younger age than their parents.
It is about ending the disgrace of having the highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth and having public school systems in inner cities that are totally failing our children – where kids now stand a greater chance of ending up in jail than ending up with a college degree.
It is about ending the disgrace that millions of undocumented people in this country continue to live in fear and are exploited every day on their jobs because they have no legal rights.
It is about ending the disgrace of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year from preventable deaths because they either lack health insurance, have high deductibles or cannot afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription drugs they need.
It is about ending the disgrace of hundreds of thousands of bright young people unable to go to college because their families are poor or working class, while millions more struggle with suffocating levels of student debt.
It is about ending the pain of a young single mother in Nevada, in tears, telling me that she doesn’t know how she and her daughter can make it on $10.45 an hour. And the reality that today millions of our fellow Americans are working at starvation wages.
It is about ending the disgrace of a mother in Flynt, Michigan, telling me what has happened to the intellectual development of her child as a result of lead in the water in that city, of many thousands of homes in California and other communities unable to drink the polluted water that comes out of their faucets.
That's a great fuckin' speech. It's angry! It says things that most politicians don't say- "starvation wages", "highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth", pollution. Hell, it even mentions the Sioux Indians in Pine Ridge. When was the last time you heard a major candidate mention Native Americans in a stump speech?
His entire thing was always negatively framed. Essentially every single sentence is organized around a denial. It wasn't policy based as he ran for months before he came out with any substantial policy papers. Compare with a Hillary speech after she lost NH
You know, when I started this campaign last spring, I knew we were facing profound challenges as a country. The way too many things were going just wasn't right. It isn't right that the kids I met in Flint on Sunday were poisoned because their governor wanted to save money. It isn't right for a grandmother here in New Hampshire or anywhere else to have to choose between paying rent and buying medicine because a prescription drug company increased the price 4,000 percent overnight. And it isn't right that a cashier that I met here in New Hampshire is paid less than her son for doing the same work even though she's been on the job for more years.
Now, people — people have every right to be angry. But they're also hungry. They're hungry for solutions. What are we going to do? And that is — that is the fight we're taking to the country. What is the best way to change people's lives so we can all grow together? Who is the best change-maker? And here's what I promise. Here's what I promise: I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better.
This, on the other hand, is corporate-speak bullshit and listeners know it.
"hungry for solutions"
"we can all grow together"
"change-maker"
No one normal talks like that. She sounds like the corporate spokesperson that is sent in to lay workers off.
"Mr. Roosevelt is the only man we ever had in the White House who would understand that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch."- North Carolina mill worker, c1935
This is what won you the election in the 30s and it'll win you elections today, in the worst economic situation since the 30s. Sanders tapped into that and he came out of nowhere to seriously challenge the most experienced candidate in modern times. Imagine what you could do with a combination of experience and messaging!
The worst economic situation since the thirties was almost a decade ago.
Posts
Propped up by the Russians, actually.
Would you say there's no room for improvement on the part of the DNC? When losing an election to a candidate as bad as Trump, it doesn't make much sense to limit all blame to external forces.
For example, the tipping of the scales by DNC officials and party fundraising coordination with Clinton before the end of the primary, while perhaps not affecting the ultimate win over Sanders, may have been a strategic mistake in terms of turning off voters. Should the party repeat those measures next time with a favored candidate?
Probably yes. US elections go on for way to long, but that's what it is, and for them to wait until August to start that sort of thing seems to be ceding ground for no reason.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Hillary's campaign did do screw ups, no argument there, but I fear you're underestimating what forces were working against her with Trump. She lost primarily by not getting the right conservative leaning regions to vote for her, and that was always going to be a struggle no matter what nominee we had.
There's so many factors that go beyond this election that have to do with America culture and how entrenched racism and sexism is.
Obama barely held on to the people, and his reach was fading - if our best candidate couldn't get that loyalty Hillary wasn't going to earn it quickly in a few months. That's why it's important for the party to make long term plans to get these votes back, and come up with contingencies in case that fails again. Because the chances are good that the next president nominee will be a centrist so the party must be prepared for that (as well as plans for if a Far left candidate loses, who'll have their own flaws to iron out.)
Yeah, not a good look but I can't say they don't have bad reasons for being there rather than at a rally for symbolism. Symbolism is nothing if the candidates don't have a large treasure chest to back it up with. The more money in their coffers, the better their chances are they'll win those elections. That said, I agree the party does need to put a bigger priority on optics with symbolism for the left voting bloc. Unfortunately, I don't expect the centrists to learn much from this - then again, they have gone very leftward the last few years (backing Perez for DNC chair, for instance) so maybe they'll get out of that rut.
Anyway, the Crooked Media guys (Pod Save America/Pod Save The World/formerly Keepin' it 1600) have launched yet another new podcast called With Friends Like These:
https://getcrookedmedia.com/with-friends-like-these-aeee91fa31da#.jlcypribw
It's basically Ana Marie Cox interviewing people from both sides of the political spectrum and trying to understand (though probably not agree with) one another.
I bring it up here because the first episode's interview was kinda interesting: It's basically a talk about a pair of rural super-duper-white WI communities that went decently hard for Obama in 08, split Romney/Obama in 12 and then went super hard Trump in 16 and why that happened.
I think it's worth a listen, if for what is imo the subtext if nothing else. There's a few points where you can feel Cox holding back or actively yanking the conversation away from an obvious coming fight when they start really digging at what is going on and what it means.
The pastor's explanation when prompted begins with the economic anxiety argument essentially. It's a white working class area and it's been going to shit for ages and they went Obama cause he was gonna change shit and then Trump because nothing really improved much over 8 years and Trump said he was gonna change shit and bring back manufacturing jobs.
But it gets more interesting as she probes at the implicit assumptions here. He talks about how they are very tight-knit and insular and she correctly basically gets him to acknowledge without formally admitting that this is essentially throwing everyone who's not like them under the bus. They just didn't give a shit that he wanted to fuck over blacks and immigrants. Not their problem.
He keeps saying they really don't like him but they still seem to support him and don't seem to be all that worked up about the recent Trump activity, though he does say they mostly tend to express their opinion at the ballot box. They know about it he says, but they just don't talk about it.
There's an explicit acknowledgement of the power of right-wing talk radio over how they think which is, well, I don't think I need to explain what that means.
But the real doozy, the thing that really made me want to post this and discuss it a bit, is when they begin discussing why they voted Trump if they seem to really not like him, he notes that they don't like Clinton either and then completely unprompted he brings up the abortion issue. Like, bam, out of nowhere basically. And the big thing is that they probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with her if she'd been "more like Bill" on the issue and emphasized the whole safe, legal and rare and really lean on the last part. And he kinda really get into this a bit until she correct points out (right before she changes the subject to avoid the interview turning into a shouting match) that the real issue is that Clinton just wasn't ashamed enough of being pro-choice.
The whole thing is really interesting to me because as much as it's framed in terms of economics, there is imo a huge undercurrent of white christian conservative cultural identity going on here.
And also a very real implication I think that these people may well be incredibly reactionary voters who bounce from one side to the other desperately hoping for a solution that doesn't exist and return to a time and place that never existed, not just economically but culturally.
Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free
The worst part of this is that Hillary and the Dems had actual, substantive solutions while Trump had absolutely nothing in terms of concrete ideas, and they still went ahead with this strategy. It confirms the fact that no matter how bad the other guy is, the Democratic nominee must focus on a positive vision with tangible benefits for voters and not get distracted by shiny objects.
Sanders is a master at this, and even the people who dislike him need to recognize the strengths of sticking to a populist agenda that energizes voters instead of disproportionately focusing their ad dollars on attacks on the opponent's style (not even their substance) that typically lower overall voter turnout.
And there's a bit on the rust belt faceplant:
I tend to agree that this tilted the election, given all the caveats about assigning blame with such a close margin of victory. That said, Comey's fuckery was not something the Clinton campaign could control.
And if they had come correct in terms of energizing voters in the right states and the right kinds of ad buys (Trump ran a higher percentage of ads focused on policy), I don't think the letter would have derailed things enough for Trump to eke out a win.
You can defend it a little because Trump is such a garbage fire that the assumption slamming him would work better than usual was sound, if incorrect. Still a bad call.
The issue is, it never should have been as close as it was. Trump was a garbage fire candidate with favorability ratings in the toilet. He should have been easy to beat. The fact that the race was close enough that the Comey letter could have any substantial influence is on the democrats.
She has been viciously attacked since before I was born. She was embroiled in a scandal based in nothing for the year and a half or so before the election. She should have been leading easily, but there are more explanations than "the dems". Societal misogyny is one. Comey is another.
Of course, many people are loyal to a political party. It didn't matter that his favorability ratings were in the toilet when most of his disapproval came from Democrats who never would've voted for him anyway, and Republicans who also disapproved of Clinton (and would've disapproved of any Dem left of Webb).
Anecdotally, I was at my parents' house on election day, and they were trying to encourage me to vote Trump on my way out the door. They didn't like him, but in my dad's words he had to "vote his conscience." Only a few months prior he had been voting Kasich in the primary and laughing about how much of a ridiculous fucking person Trump was.
So I don't think it's really as simple as you're trying to make it out to be, that it was an easy landslide tossed away. No matter what strategy the Dems took (whether it is a winning one or not, whether it's with a different candidate or not), the GOP would've at least been competitive.
Not really quite accurate. It's more how you talk to them that gets them excited.
You talked about Sanders earlier but Sanders appeal wasn't based around his policies but based around his rhetoric about those policies.
She was a candidate with a lot of baggage that was defended mostly because said baggage was unfair.
Which is cool and all, but it seems highly ironic that the people now talking of "whatever it takes to impeach Trump" ran such a flawed candidate just to prove a point. I mean, if beating the GOP and then Trump was so important, why she had to run again after 2008?
Whether it's the policies or the rhetoric about them that get people excited, the Clinton campaign underspent on letting people know what she was going to do for the country. We needed a New Deal and instead we got negative, personality-based campaigning.
It was a mistake, perhaps understandable given the nature of the election, but it should be recognized after the fact.
Speaking as a Clinton primary voter, I didn't vote for her to "prove a point". I, like millions of others, voted for because we believed she was the best choice.
And I don't think anyone could've predicted that Comey would've just happened to have "reopened the investigation" barely a week before the election, not when it was something that was already wrapping up, and hadn't borne fruit after so much time and effort spent investigating. If the timeline had been switched so that Comey's letter and the Trump Access Hollywood video switched places, Hillary would've won in a landslide.
Sanders wasn't positive and he lost the Democratic primary by a lot.
Hillary was far more positive. And it wasn't at all close. Sanders vilified the establishment, Hillary, the rich, Wall Street, etc etc.
Here's from June, he defines his campaign through exclusion Or after Iowa
His entire thing was always negatively framed. Essentially every single sentence is organized around a denial. It wasn't policy based as he ran for months before he came out with any substantial policy papers. Compare with a Hillary speech after she lost NH
Clinton also did better in Ohio and Pennsylvania than Sanders. The idea that Sanders better performance in the primaries, marginal in Michigan and non-trivial Wisconin would be sufficient is just not supported by math. This is especially true considering Sanders lost by nearly 20% in the primaries to Clinton.
Trump didn't win because Clinton wasn't positive or because she failed to be flawless. He won because he successfully tapped into racism and sexism and because the Russians and FBI ginned up conspiracy theories about the evils of the Hillary Clinton and the persecution complex of certain segments of Sanders supporters in regard to the DNC, which played into an incompetent media's preferred cynical narrative. Monday morning QBing about not campaigning in states that no one, including Sanders, thought they should be focusing on doesn't change that.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Excusing missteps as inconsequential seems like a formula for repeating them. Should the next nominee spend the same unprecedented ratio of personal versus policy-based advertising dollars because it won't affect the outcome?
Stop with this goosery please. We have the hindsight enough to understand that Hillary failed to establish a clear message and communicate to the rust belt states that saw little to no gains from the economic turn around after 2008. For example, lets compare two campaign videos.
Trump had a clear message and sold what he wanted to do. Clinton didn't.
Overall point I want to make is that Clinton didn't run a good campaign. They got over confident, cocky, and arrogant. Stop with the goosery of "Oohh. Only racists and sexists came out and voted Trump" because that's a ridiculous claim that cannot be proven with data.
We shouldn't be saying Trump did a good job because he was able to piss on their legs and actually convince them it is raining.
Trumps ads were not successful* because they "included policy" but because they were tribal. The "policy" was incedental.
*if they even were; prior to the Comey letter trump has significantly higher negatives than Clinton.
Trump's clear message was white identity politics.
Sanders performed so well exactly because he was a negative candidate just like Trump. Because he tapped into the "fuck the system and everything" feelings that were going around a lot within the electorate just like Trump did.
The Democratic Party Establishments biggest mistake overall was not really getting these feelings because by any reasonable metric the US was doing well and Obama had steered the country well and was fucking really popular because of it.
Any chance he may have been the only voice in the room (crazy or not) on the policy front and won by default because the Clinton campaign and the media were overly personality focused? They suggest that in the study:
I live in Wisconsin but managed to avoid them for the most part. What were they about in your neck of the woods?
EDIT: Oh, and Hillary sucks, obviously.
Did you even watch the video I posted? He doesn't say shit like, "Go to my webpage and read my polciy." because nobody wants to do that. People are inherently lazy creatures. Donald instead sold a powerful vision that went something like, "Secure our borders, expand the military to keep us safe, bring back jobs". He was great at selling that vision. Its how he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennyslvania, and Ohio from Clinton.
I'm all for looking into the mistakes that Hillary's campaign made so that we can learn from them and improve our chances of winning 2018 or even 2020. We just can't do that as a party if we keep blaming select groups of people for carrying him to office when there are clearly signs/evidence of poor performance on the DNC's part.
The problem in this is that the Democrats thought well enough of people that they thought they wouldn't be fooled by Trump's bullshit. Turns out assuming your supporters are good people and won't abandon you to save their hides when promised the moon by a living monkey's paw is a bad idea.
That's a great fuckin' speech. It's angry! It says things that most politicians don't say- "starvation wages", "highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth", pollution. Hell, it even mentions the Sioux Indians in Pine Ridge. When was the last time you heard a major candidate mention Native Americans in a stump speech?
This, on the other hand, is corporate-speak bullshit and listeners know it.
"hungry for solutions"
"we can all grow together"
"change-maker"
No one normal talks like that. She sounds like the corporate spokesperson that is sent in to lay workers off.
"Mr. Roosevelt is the only man we ever had in the White House who would understand that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch."- North Carolina mill worker, c1935
This is what won you the election in the 30s and it'll win you elections today, in the worst economic situation since the 30s. Sanders tapped into that and he came out of nowhere to seriously challenge the most experienced candidate in modern times. Imagine what you could do with a combination of experience and messaging!
The worst economic situation since the thirties was almost a decade ago.