• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

milo said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/847214676513558528
Click to expand...

The thing I never understood was how utterly out of touch her campaign was. They needed to fight fire with fire, not spend time telling people other people were lying. Why didn't they go for the jugular in return? Use social media like the orange one did? Her own mechanism let her down, along with the knowledge that they fudged Sanders over and that dirt would come out. Had they been brave they'd have seen the public didn't care they simply wanted someone who was going to 'win'...yes there would've been outrage had Trump dragged it up in response, but that outrage could have been 'tacotered' the next day. The short-attention-span public would've moved on like birds and breadcrumbs!


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
thfcsteff said:
The thing I never understood was how utterly out of touch her campaign was. They needed to fight fire with fire, not spend time telling people other people were lying. Why didn't they go for the jugular in return? Use social media like the orange one did? Her own mechanism let her down, along with the knowledge that they fudged Sanders over and that dirt would come out. Had they been brave they'd have seen the public didn't care they simply wanted someone who was going to 'win'...yes there would've been outrage had Trump dragged it up in response, but that outrage could have been 'tacotered' the next day. The short-attention-span public would've moved on like birds and breadcrumbs!


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

She won the popular vote, so the campaign message cannot have been that bad. Where she failed was she fought a traditional campaign and Trump campaign targeted it's message to those most likely to be receptive to it and in key places. Clinton would have won if she had approached social media in the same way.

Labour had the same issue in the 2015 general election. They had by far and away the most people on the doorsteps but they only succeeded in increasing votes where they didn't need them.
 
milo said:
She won the popular vote, so the campaign message cannot have been that bad. Where she failed was she fought a traditional campaign and Trump campaign targeted it's message to those most likely to be receptive to it and in key places. Clinton would have won if she had approached social media in the same way.

Labour had the same issue in the 2015 general election. They had by far and away the most people on the doorsteps but they only succeeded in increasing votes where they didn't need them.
Click to expand...

Apparently, she piled on the votes in California, which made her win the popular vote (she got 4.3 million more votes in California than Trump). In all the other states combined, Trump got 1.4 million more votes than Clinton.
 
thfcsteff said:
The thing I never understood was how utterly out of touch her campaign was. They needed to fight fire with fire, not spend time telling people other people were lying. Why didn't they go for the jugular in return? Use social media like the orange one did? Her own mechanism let her down, along with the knowledge that they fudged Sanders over and that dirt would come out. Had they been brave they'd have seen the public didn't care they simply wanted someone who was going to 'win'...yes there would've been outrage had Trump dragged it up in response, but that outrage could have been 'tacotered' the next day. The short-attention-span public would've moved on like birds and breadcrumbs!


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Mainly because Clinton was so disliked in the US, every time she got publicity her approval ratings dropped. She had to play a comparatively quiet campaign because she was so distrusted.

Trump, on the other hand, played the whole thing like a joke and got a bump in the ratings even when he was shown in a negative light.
 
the dza said:
Apparently, she piled on the votes in California, which made her win the popular vote (she got 4.3 million more votes in California than Trump). In all the other states combined, Trump got 1.4 million more votes than Clinton.
Click to expand...

I think that is a rather artificial way of looking at it. California is a big state, so obviously there are a lot of votes to be pulled up there but she won the popular vote in plenty of other states and increasing votes where she didn't need them was a reasonably consistent trend.
 
scaramanga said:
Mainly because Clinton was so disliked in the US, every time she got publicity her approval ratings dropped. She had to play a comparatively quiet campaign because she was so distrusted.

Trump, on the other hand, played the whole thing like a joke and got a bump in the ratings even when he was shown in a negative light.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. Both candidates were historically unpopular. I suspect that if the FBI had revealed that it was investigating links between Trump and Russia in the closing stages of the campaign rather than the CIA revealing that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails, the result would have been reversed.
 
milo said:
I think that is a rather artificial way of looking at it. California is a big state, so obviously there are a lot of votes to be pulled up there but she won the popular vote in plenty of other states and increasing votes where she didn't need them was a reasonably consistent trend.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's artificial. Clinton piled on millions of votes in a state that was strongly for her. She won 20 states overall, Trump won 30 states.

348px-ElectoralCollege2016.svg.png
 
milo said:
She won the popular vote, so the campaign message cannot have been that bad. Where she failed was she fought a traditional campaign and Trump campaign targeted it's message to those most likely to be receptive to it and in key places. Clinton would have won if she had approached social media in the same way.

Labour had the same issue in the 2015 general election. They had by far and away the most people on the doorsteps but they only succeeded in increasing votes where they didn't need them.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.
They simply did not do the extra work necessary and got complacent. They felt they had enough. It was as glaring an oversight as speaking Spanish in Brazil and wondering why people aren't quite picking up what you're saying.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
scaramanga said:
Mainly because Clinton was so disliked in the US, every time she got publicity her approval ratings dropped. She had to play a comparatively quiet campaign because she was so distrusted.

Trump, on the other hand, played the whole thing like a joke and got a bump in the ratings even when he was shown in a negative light.
Click to expand...

We will never know, but I firmly believe that she should've fought an aggressive and equally unintellectual 'twitter campaign' where necessary. Her base would've complained but they wouldn't have voted against her. All she needed to do in those key states was prove that Trump was a trumper of the lowest order. She wouldn't. I agree she was hated, but had she fought fire with I still think she'd have seen them off.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
milo said:
I don't think that is true. Both candidates were historically unpopular. I suspect that if the FBI had revealed that it was investigating links between Trump and Russia in the closing stages of the campaign rather than the CIA revealing that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails, the result would have been reversed.
Click to expand...
I recall at the time and article showing how Trump's publicity never really dropped his approval rating - at worst it just flatlined (other than the misogyny stuff).

Clinton, however, often dropped points even with positive news - the theory was that every time people saw her they remembered how little they trusted her.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
scaramanga said:
I recall at the time and article showing how Trump's publicity never really dropped his approval rating - at worst it just flatlined (other than the misogyny stuff).

Clinton, however, often dropped points even with positive news - the theory was that every time people saw her they remembered how little they trusted her.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

But Clinton's last dip came at exactly the wrong time. Not helped by running a campaign that was five or ten years out of date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back