Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Max Rockatansky]

I tend to agree with several of your observations...although I'd soften some of the harshness.

I've always seen Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative as a Yin-Yang thing; they complete a whole just like a traditional mother and father or female and male. Mothers and women tend to be nurturing and compassionate, while fathers and men tend to be more stoic and urent about standing upon one's own feet. I think a nation overly-dominated by Left or Right would be doomed to failure in the end. While party names and specific ideologies change, the basic differences between the two major parties often remain the same and date back to Jefferson and Hamilton such as:
1) Big vs Small government
2) Corporate vs public interests
3) Taxes

Democrats seem right of centre to me. Maybe just my perspective as a Canadian.

They are right of center compared to Euros.

2016


2012


2008


2004

 

[JohnG]

I tend to agree with several of your observations...although I'd soften some of the harshness.

I've always seen Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative as a Yin-Yang thing; they complete a whole just like a traditional mother and father or female and male. Mothers and women tend to be nurturing and compassionate, while fathers and men tend to be more stoic and urent about standing upon one's own feet. I think a nation overly-dominated by Left or Right would be doomed to failure in the end. While party names and specific ideologies change, the basic differences between the two major parties often remain the same and date back to Jefferson and Hamilton such as:
1) Big vs Small government
2) Corporate vs public interests
3) Taxes

Democrats seem right of centre to me. Maybe just my perspective as a Canadian.

They are right of center compared to Euros.

2016
View attachment 18533

2012
View attachment 18534

2008
View attachment 18535

2004
View attachment 18536

That makes sense to me. I don't know about DT. I'm not sure he has a political philosophy himself, but I guess he represents the current line-up of Republicans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

But that's a campaign failure. If they failed to recognize the mood of the people in the places where they needed to tap into it, that's strategic error on their part which helped contribute to the loss. They didn't do the things which they needed to do as a campaign team and, as a result, their candidate lost.

The good news is that the Democratic leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the mistakes that they made, which will give them the opportunity to make those exact same mistakes all over again and that means they will get another chance to learn from these mistakes.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

But that's a campaign failure. If they failed to recognize the mood of the people in the places where they needed to tap into it, that's strategic error on their part which helped contribute to the loss. They didn't do the things which they needed to do as a campaign team and, as a result, their candidate lost.

The good news is that the Democratic leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the mistakes that they made, which will give them the opportunity to make those exact same mistakes all over again and that means they will get another chance to learn from these mistakes.

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

As for the DNC, time will tell. At the moment it seems they are at a loss as to who to run in 2020. Biden has been floated quite a bit, but he's 75 now, will be 77 when nominated and, if he lives long enough, 81 before leaving office after his first term. It would be silly for a party to run a candidate who isn't good for two terms.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

But that's a campaign failure. If they failed to recognize the mood of the people in the places where they needed to tap into it, that's strategic error on their part which helped contribute to the loss. They didn't do the things which they needed to do as a campaign team and, as a result, their candidate lost.

The good news is that the Democratic leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the mistakes that they made, which will give them the opportunity to make those exact same mistakes all over again and that means they will get another chance to learn from these mistakes.

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

(And preferably one who has an education that isn't 30 years past its best-by date)

 

[ZiprHead]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

But that's a campaign failure. If they failed to recognize the mood of the people in the places where they needed to tap into it, that's strategic error on their part which helped contribute to the loss. They didn't do the things which they needed to do as a campaign team and, as a result, their candidate lost.

The good news is that the Democratic leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the mistakes that they made, which will give them the opportunity to make those exact same mistakes all over again and that means they will get another chance to learn from these mistakes.

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

She had a lot of progressive (for the US) policy goals and they were all clearly spelled out. She just didn't do a good job of communicating them to the people she needed to communicate with.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

What changes to her campaign message could she have done that would appeal to swing states without making her look like a lying hypocrite?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

Absolutely this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

(And preferably one who has an education that isn't 30 years past its best-by date)

I actually feel the same way as you. I've always been more progressive than the people I've voted for. Most of my votes have been votes against people I didn't want in office than for people I did.

That you decided against using that very valid strategy and seeing what we have to deal with today, it makes me wonder about the thought process that went into your decision.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

It was the job of the campaign to make these analyses and determine which locales weren't actually safe. Trump's team managed to do that.

Do you recall at the end of the campaign when all the pundits were wondering why Trump was bothering to hold rallies in the Midwest when those states were lost to him and he should have been focusing his resources in states he had a chance of winning ... and then he eked out victories in those Midwest states? It's because his campaign team analyzed the situation on the ground and found a discrepancy between the common perceptions and what they were actually seeing and put together a strategy to take advantage of this.

It came out after the election that the Dems in the Midwest were also telling the Clinton campaign the same thing, but the campaign chose not to listen and they ended up losing. The Trump team made a good call and the Clinton team made a bad call and this was one of the key reasons Trump is now in the White House. Their actions making the wrong decisions led directly to their loss and when your actions lead to your losing, what you have done is failed.

 

[ZiprHead]

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

She had a lot of progressive (for the US) policy goals and they were all clearly spelled out. She just didn't do a good job of communicating them to the people she needed to communicate with.

Was it that she didn't do a good job of communicating them or was it the the news media let Trump suck all the air out of the room with 24/7 coverage of his campaign and almost none of hers?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Agreed a good campaign will tap into the mood of a majority of voters, but as pointed out, there are other factors beyond their control. For example, Hillary can't change her past nor run as Republican.

But she could have tailored her campaign message to better appeal to swing voters in the swing states. She could have put more focus on the Midwest in the closing days of the campaign instead of accepting the polls which told her it was a lock when Trump's team was able to do their own analysis which showed this wasn't the case.

Trump wasn't able to change his past as a Democrat who's spent a career conning people and screwing them over, but he was able to market himself in a way to make enough people not care. Clinton's wasn't able to push a similar message of rebranding her in the places which mattered.

Those things are what campaign managers and workers are paid to do. When they don't do it, it means they failed.

What changes to her campaign message could she have done that would appeal to swing states without making her look like a lying hypocrite?

I have no idea. That's why if Clinton had paid me a large amount of money to help run her Presidential campaign, that poor hiring decision would have been a failure on her part.

Trump got people who helped him craft a message which got voters to look past all of his negatives and enthusiastically support him anyways. Clinton didn't get people who were able to figure out the same for her.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Hillary's campaign ran on "more of the same" and Trump on "now for something completely different". Given those two choices, and given that most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of our nation, We, the People, elected Trump. What will happen in 2020, or even next Tuesday, is in the hands of We, the People, not pollsters or campaign managers.

But that's a campaign failure. If they failed to recognize the mood of the people in the places where they needed to tap into it, that's strategic error on their part which helped contribute to the loss. They didn't do the things which they needed to do as a campaign team and, as a result, their candidate lost.

The good news is that the Democratic leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the mistakes that they made, which will give them the opportunity to make those exact same mistakes all over again and that means they will get another chance to learn from these mistakes.

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

The "Clinton Foundation" was flush with cash from foreign donations. A reason many considered her corrupt (remember Billary selling the Lincoln bedroom?) and also why the FBI was looking into the Foundation.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

It was the job of the campaign to make these analyses and determine which locales weren't actually safe. Trump's team managed to do that.

Do you recall at the end of the campaign when all the pundits were wondering why Trump was bothering to hold rallies in the Midwest when those states were lost to him and he should have been focusing his resources in states he had a chance of winning ... and then he eked out victories in those Midwest states? It's because his campaign team analyzed the situation on the ground and found a discrepancy between the common perceptions and what they were actually seeing and put together a strategy to take advantage of this.

It came out after the election that the Dems in the Midwest were also telling the Clinton campaign the same thing, but the campaign chose not to listen and they ended up losing. The Trump team made a good call and the Clinton team made a bad call and this was one of the key reasons Trump is now in the White House. Their actions making the wrong decisions led directly to their loss and when your actions lead to your losing, what you have done is failed.

Again, did they choose not to listen because she's "the dumbs" or was it because there just wasn't enough money to divert into longshot locales? You didn't address that part of my question.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

As someone who is, ostensibly, in the group that HRC managed to not inspire to the polls, no. She failed because she was unable to be the democrat we wanted. If the DNC really wants o win elections, they need to field a real progressive with clearly stated policy goals, and a track record for actually pursuing those goals.

She had a lot of progressive (for the US) policy goals and they were all clearly spelled out. She just didn't do a good job of communicating them to the people she needed to communicate with.

Was it that she didn't do a good job of communicating them or was it the the news media let Trump suck all the air out of the room with 24/7 coverage of his campaign and almost none of hers?

It would be wrong to blame "the media" for Hillary losing the election. Media is a business which thrives on sex, violence and controversy. Trump, despite all of his faults (and he has a ton of them) is a media master. The fact remains that Hillary's campaign either promised "more of the same" (boring) and "ban guns", which scared the shit out of anyone in the center or right of center.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think you;ve made a good point.

I wonder, however, how campaign funds were involved in making these decisions. Hillary's campaign was not only funding her own campaign, but also keeping the DNC afloat. Were there funds enough to make it worth campaigning in locales that almost all considered safe? The reasons behind why these decisions should be examined instead of just saying "Hillary was dumbs."

The "Clinton Foundation" was flush with cash from foreign donations. A reason many considered her corrupt (remember Billary selling the Lincoln bedroom?) and also why the FBI was looking into the Foundation.

View attachment 18539
View attachment 18540

Your own second attachment shows her campaign did not receive funds from the Clinton Foundation. Do you have proof it did?

Edited to add that if the foundation did fund Hillary's campaign, that would put their 501C3 status in jeopardy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I actually feel the same way as you. I've always been more progressive than the people I've voted for. Most of my votes have been votes against people I didn't want in office than for people I did.

That you decided against using that very valid strategy and seeing what we have to deal with today, it makes me wonder about the thought process that went into your decision.

It is a strategy that encourages those you are voting for to ignore you and take your vote for granted, and quite likely to shift AWAY from what you want so to attract move votes they may not otherwise have. It is why the Democrats have been reaching further and further to the right. Is there any case of "less of two evils" choice where you wouldn't vote for one of them based on this strategy?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Again, did they choose not to listen because she's "the dumbs" or was it because there just wasn't enough money to divert into longshot locales? You didn't address that part of my question.

Doesn't matter - it was the wrong choice either way. The point is that these were not actually longshot locales. They were incorrectly identified as longshot locales and they were really close races which could have been swayed either way by a late push. Both the Dem and GOP teams on the ground recognized this and brought it to the attention of the national campaigns. The Trump team made the correct call and listened to them and the Clinton team made the incorrect call and didn't.

The ability to make the correct calls in situations like that is why you pay lots of money for campaign advisors as opposed to having unpaid interns google the latest polling results each morning and working off of that. The Clinton team failed to make the correct calls and failed as a result of this mistake.