The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2017, 03:51 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
The Clinton campaign was brutally awful

Another thread has referenced the new book Shattered, but Matt Taibbi does a great job of explaining the good parts:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...mpaign-w477978

Quote:
Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers:

"She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. … She believed her campaign had failed her – not the other way around – and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation."
I think this lack of self awareness was the reason her campaign was essentially a repeat of the 2008 campaign, with a dysfunctional, messageless campaign. And I suspect that her vaunted experience and competence will be called into question by the fact she failed almost the exact same way twice and perhaps STILL doesn't understand what she did wrong.

Last edited by adaher; 04-21-2017 at 03:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-21-2017, 04:55 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I think HRC ran a bad campaign. But Matt Taibbi has been on the warpath against her for so long, it's hard to take any of his comments seriously. I can't tell you how many anti-Clinton articles I started reading, then thought: Matt Taibbi? and sure enough a quick glance at the author confirmed it. As a political commentator, I just can't trust him to be remotely objective when it comes to Hillary.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-21-2017 at 04:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:14 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 53,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I think HRC ran a bad campaign. But Matt Taibbi has been on the warpath against her for so long, it's hard to take any of his comments seriously. I can't tell you how many anti-Clinton articles I started reading, then thought: Matt Taibbi? and sure enough a quick glance at the author confirmed it. As a political commentator, I just can't trust him to be remotely objective when it comes to Hillary.
Fair point in general, but in this case he appears to be echoing the book, written by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Not yet read it, but I suspect he is not mis-characterizing it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:26 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Fair point in general, but in this case he appears to be echoing the book, written by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Not yet read it, but I suspect he is not mis-characterizing it.
You're probably right. I just got in the habit of not reading his stuff about Hillary, but in this case that's probably not entirely justified.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:58 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Pretty much all the reviews of Shattered say the same thing. The media didn't cover just how dysfunctional the campaign was as much as they did in 2008, but it looks like the problems were still there, despite a lot of Obama personnel in there and Clinton at least trying not to repeat her mistakes. The problem is that she just misdiagnosed what went wrong in 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:10 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Have seen the news blurbs about books that might include those mentioned here. So I don't know the details in the books but the general conclusions sound correct and are verified by Hillary campaigns response which attacks the books authors instead of considering the obvious mistakes they made. Trump didn't win the election, Hillary lost it. It was hers to lose and that's just what she did. Let's not forget the majority of the Democratic party that backed her, including Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:32 AM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
It's a considerable achievement in itself to lose to Trump.


When he started knocking down those GOP goons like bowling pins, I knew he would win if HRC was the Democratic nominee; but had they chosen any other he would have been trounced.



Five years ago I would have scoffed if told he would be a nominee, let alone president. So I can be very wrong too.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:33 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 41,598
Another insider memoir from the World of Politics. Sigh.

The next one in which the author is not the Incorruptible Hero while everyone else around him is evil or incompetent and should have listened to him will be the first.

Sometimes cynicism is useful.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:10 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,585
Hillary Clinton has at no time in her history in federal politics acted like she truly understands how to be a politician. I've always found it weird that so many in the Democratic hierarchy thought that she should be the anointed standard bearer for being the first woman president. She may be very good at being a behind-the-scenes organizer, stage-managing her husband's various victories. But her 2008 campaign was not well run, and her stint in the State Department certainly didn't give anyone the strong belief she had learned anything about herself and her political capabilities.

I'm still surprised she lost in the fall, but I did say all along last year that the Democrats were nominating the one person who had a chance to lose to Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:26 AM
nate nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
To be fair, it's not like she had a lot of negative feedback. Every media outlet made it clear that Trump had an impossible path to victory, that all swing states would have to turn red, including some leaning D states. She was just running out the clock, playing ball control, while Trump continuously made a fool of himself. I would agree her campaign was a brutally awful IF anyone had said anything about it before election night, now it just seems like monday morning quarterbacking.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:28 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I would agree her campaign was a brutally awful IF anyone had said anything about it before election night, now it just seems like monday morning quarterbacking.
Plenty of people said something about before election night, and we were accused of being insane Trump or Sanders supporters because Hillary was perfect and how dare we!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:57 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,800
Don't forget Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to run for president!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:04 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
There were basically two types of people in the campaign:
1. Hillary's people
2. Hired professionals

Were the hired professionals ignored? Or were they incompetent?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:34 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
There were basically two types of people in the campaign:
1. Hillary's people
2. Hired professionals

Were the hired professionals ignored? Or were they incompetent?
Could be both.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-21-2017, 01:04 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I would agree her campaign was a brutally awful IF anyone had said anything about it before election night, now it just seems like monday morning quarterbacking.
A lot of Dems in swing states said so a couple of months before the election - swing states she lost. And I'm talking politicians and party officials talking directly with the campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-21-2017, 01:20 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Don't forget Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to run for president!
Do you know that she won the popular vote in the last election?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-21-2017, 01:34 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 53,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
To be fair, it's not like she had a lot of negative feedback. Every media outlet made it clear that Trump had an impossible path to victory, that all swing states would have to turn red, including some leaning D states. She was just running out the clock, playing ball control, while Trump continuously made a fool of himself. I would agree her campaign was a brutally awful IF anyone had said anything about it before election night, now it just seems like monday morning quarterbacking.
The book mentioned in the OP makes the claim that inside the campaign, people said things about it well before Election Day.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-21-2017, 02:39 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Do you know that she won the popular vote in the last election?
Unfortunately, Ol' Hillary didn't win the popular vote in enough states to give her the Electoral College votes needed to actually win the election for POTUS in 2016. She's still eligible to run again in 2020. So she's got that going for her.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-21-2017, 04:09 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Or 2024... She's honing her game. On to 2028 !
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-21-2017, 04:49 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,604
As noted, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.

But we love hatin' on her--she was a disaster! She ran an awful campaign! Any other Dem candidate would have beaten Trump soundly! Etc. etc.

Doesn't matter if there's any truth to any of that; any book so stating will sell like the proverbial hotcakes.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:11 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Don't forget Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to run for president!
I got a good laugh out of that.

The Democrats ran Obama because he was black. They ran Clinton because she was female and well, she was Hillary. Neither one of them was qualified in the slightest to be President. I'm glad the American public saw that in Hillary's case; it's a crying shame they didn't see it in Obama's case.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:18 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
I got a good laugh out of that.

The Democrats ran Obama because he was black. They ran Clinton because she was female and well, she was Hillary. Neither one of them was qualified in the slightest to be President. I'm glad the American public saw that in Hillary's case; it's a crying shame they didn't see it in Obama's case.
*checks forum*

I'm going to have to ask for your cites on Obama because he was black and Hillary because she was female.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:28 PM
Kevbo Kevbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The problem is that she just misdiagnosed what went wrong in 2008.
I don't think so. She figured out how to beat Bernie in in the 2016 primary. She made no general election campaign mistakes in 2008 because she didn't run in the general.

Her problem in the general was mostly just that she is Hillary Clinton. Maybe she could have changed something enough to appeal to the Bernie supporters, and win by a nose, but the leaked, cough <Russia> cough, emails made sure that didn't happen. Trump had some actual supporters, but at least half of his votes came from people that saw he was a Bozo, but somehow thought HRC was worse.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:28 PM
Fubaya Fubaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
*checks forum*

I'm going to have to ask for your cites on Obama because he was black and Hillary because she was female.
and that neither was qualified to be President
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:35 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
As dysfunctional as the campaign was you can't omit the fact that Hillary ran the campaign she should have ran if the polls had been correct. There was no inkling that the blue wall was in any danger, as far as anyone could tell she was comfortably ahead everywhere she needed to be and concentrating on expanding the map rather than defending the blue wall at all costs made perfect sense given the information at hand.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:03 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
The one thing I'd heard that I could agree was about her arrogance is that her husband told her she needed to focus more on the angry working class whites, and her dismissing his advice. Is that mentioned in this book, at all?

I do not see a problem in how she didn't actually focus in those states she lost, because the polling said she should win. The problem I see is how she shouldn't have been that close in the first place.

That said, I don't know how much of that is her, and how much of that is the dark underbelly of America. I still see way too many enthusiastic Trump supporters, not just people who voted him as the lesser of two evils.

I do think this country has a huge, huge ethical problem. And a huge bigotry problem that we've thought was much better than it is.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:04 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
As dysfunctional as the campaign was you can't omit the fact that Hillary ran the campaign she should have ran if the polls had been correct. There was no inkling that the blue wall was in any danger, as far as anyone could tell she was comfortably ahead everywhere she needed to be and concentrating on expanding the map rather than defending the blue wall at all costs made perfect sense given the information at hand.
I'm not sure that's true, but let's say it is. All that tells you is that she went to the right places. It doesn't tell you said the right things or acted the right way or did whatever she needed to do to convince people to vote for her.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:29 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
I got a good laugh out of that.

The Democrats ran Obama because he was black. They ran Clinton because she was female and well, she was Hillary. Neither one of them was qualified in the slightest to be President. I'm glad the American public saw that in Hillary's case; it's a crying shame they didn't see it in Obama's case.
That's just not right. Obama didn't win because he was black. He won because he ran a fantastic campaign and motivated and inspired people in huge numbers. The guy was brilliant and there is no shame in acknowledging that. I wish his policies were more aligned with mine, but I would never deny how effective a politician he was. Clinton was also competent as a politician. I think she was the nominee more because she was a Clinton and less because she is a woman. Both were well qualified for the office.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:31 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Set me to wondering how many people changed their minds due to campaigning? Hillary ran a bad campaign, the evidence being the huge lead she frittered away? Maybe we are thinking the campaign is the contest when it has already been largely decided. Trump showed us a loudmouth lout for months, didn't change many minds, it would seem. So why would we expect Hillary's campaigning to change their minds?

What was she supposed to do, reason with them?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:32 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The one thing I'd heard that I could agree was about her arrogance is that her husband told her she needed to focus more on the angry working class whites, and her dismissing his advice. Is that mentioned in this book, at all?
Yes, I was just watching the authors on MSNBC. I believe it's a theme in the book, from the commentary. Bill brought this up more than once. There was a conflict between analytics and the political horse-sense (if that's the right word) and experience of team members, including Bill. She chose the analytics.

I'm not sure that I agree that it was arrogance. Many, many aspects of life today revolve around analytics and "big data". A numbers game isn't necessarily an arrogant one. It's happened in athletics and other spheres as well. In this case, it was the wrong call.

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 04-21-2017 at 06:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:42 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevbo View Post
I don't think so. She figured out how to beat Bernie in in the 2016 primary.
It wasn't at all surprising she beat Bernie; what was surprising was how close he came: Hillary ran for President for 10 years while Bernie only ran for about a year. Bernie was a Democratic Socialist (socialist being a poison term in U.S. politics).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:42 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Set me to wondering how many people changed their minds due to campaigning? Hillary ran a bad campaign, the evidence being the huge lead she frittered away? Maybe we are thinking the campaign is the contest when it has already been largely decided. Trump showed us a loudmouth lout for months, didn't change many minds, it would seem. So why would we expect Hillary's campaigning to change their minds?

What was she supposed to do, reason with them?
"After the election, Diane Hessan who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to track undecided voters wrote that the 'basket of deplorables' comment was the single biggest moment when voters switched from undecided to Trump."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:51 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Name calling doesn't make converts?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:59 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's just not right. Obama didn't win because he was black. He won because he ran a fantastic campaign and motivated and inspired people in huge numbers. The guy was brilliant and there is no shame in acknowledging that. I wish his policies were more aligned with mine, but I would never deny how effective a politician he was. Clinton was also competent as a politician. I think she was the nominee more because she was a Clinton and less because she is a woman. Both were well qualified for the office.
I dunno. Take a duplicate Obama, but white, and does he win? I don't think so. We can never know for sure, of course, but I doubt White Obama becomes president.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:14 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm not sure that's true, but let's say it is. All that tells you is that she went to the right places. It doesn't tell you said the right things or acted the right way or did whatever she needed to do to convince people to vote for her.
Well she convinced 3 million more people than Trump did, they were just in the wrong places. The wrong places based on flawed data.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:22 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Righties never get over the fact that Obama too what everybody expected would be a disadvantage (his race) and leveraged it into an advantage as it got him more votes in states where he needed them than it cost him in those same states.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:36 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
I wish i lived in the country people who think being black helped Obama live in.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:45 PM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
I wish i lived in the country people who think being black helped Obama live in.
Agreed. I'll concede if you're running to be the Mayor of Baltimore being black helps but the President of the US?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:56 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Being black did help in that it motivated black voters and even other minority voters. I'd say Cory Booker has a big advantage over white candidates in 2020 at least in that one respect.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-21-2017, 08:57 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Being black did help in that it motivated black voters and even other minority voters.
Sure, but that in no way compares to what it cost him.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:05 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
There are other quotes in the same citation that give opposite opinions, but escaped your attention. I'm assuming you know that, if that isn't so, I apologize.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:24 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Agreed. I'll concede if you're running to be the Mayor of Baltimore being black helps but the President of the US?
Obama was a "safe black". Black, but not too black. It was almost like he was half white! White Obama in 2008 is a pretty unremarkable pol. White Obama probably doesn't even beat Hillary in the primary.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-21-2017 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:32 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,800
Bernie almost beat her and he isn't as good a politician as Obama. It's an unanswerable question but vs a 2008 McCain/Palin ticket I think a white Obama still wins. Obama was really inspiring. Even I almost voted for him.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:39 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
What was she supposed to do, reason with them?
Put forward a positive message of some sort, not this "I'm with her" crap that amounted to "It's my turn" combined with "Trump is so awful you have to vote for me". Actually campaign in swing states instead of trying to rack up worthless popular vote in blue states. (She's the first presidential candidate since 1972 to skip Wisconsin, for example). Get her supporters to stop talking about 'qualifications', because her qualifications were things like 'supported legislation that she now opposes (Iraq War, Crime Bill' and 'opposed legislation that she now supports (gay marriage)' and 'got appointed to a position by the Democratic establihment'. Be convincing enough in her positions that at least her supporters believe her (like her supposed opposition to TPP). Drop the extremist anti-gun position (opposition to private citizens having guns for self-defense and complete handgun ban) and embrace Heller with something like 'now you don't have to worry about excesses like DC, lets work on common sense measures'. Scale back the warmongering so that her foreign policy seems less aggressive than Trump's.

There's a lot that's wrong with her that can't be fixed on the trail (lack of charisma, bad policy positions, Wall Street ties) but there are several things that are definite mistakes in the campaign that could be corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:43 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I think this lack of self awareness was the reason her campaign was essentially a repeat of the 2008 campaign, with a dysfunctional, messageless campaign. And I suspect that her vaunted experience and competence will be called into question by the fact she failed almost the exact same way twice and perhaps STILL doesn't understand what she did wrong.
Naw, it wasn't her fault, it was Trump, the Russians and Comey.

If she runs the same kind of campaign a third time it's bound to result in success.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:51 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 53,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
As noted, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.

But we love hatin' on her--she was a disaster! She ran an awful campaign! Any other Dem candidate would have beaten Trump soundly! Etc. etc.

Doesn't matter if there's any truth to any of that; any book so stating will sell like the proverbial hotcakes.
The book makes some compelling observations. (I bought it and am about halfway through).

For instance, the September 2015 NYT story that the Clinton campaign would shift strategies, to show a new Hillary with "more humor and heart." The piece quoted campaign officials (Mook and Palmieri) saying that their plans included showing how authentic she was by having her appear on late night talk shows, dance the Nae Nae, and reveal that she kept up with the Kardashians.

As Clinton supporters and donors across the country furiously pointed out, a campaign announcement of a strategy to make her seem authentic had exactly the opposite effect.

"It was a pure what-the-fuck moment that buttressed qualms about Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness at a terrible time."
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:21 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
There are other quotes in the same citation that give opposite opinions, but escaped your attention. I'm assuming you know that, if that isn't so, I apologize.
Well, in addition to the bit I noted, someone else gets quoted as saying it definitely could've alienated voters; I wouldn't say that's the opposite opinion, it seems blandly compatible with it. And we're also told that "some political analysts compared the statement to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe", which (a) I also wouldn't say is the opposite opinion, but which (b) also seems compatible with it. And there's the quote from Taranto, which says nothing about whether it was the single biggest moment when voters switched from 'undecided' to 'Trump'.

That leaves Weaver. "Born as an insult, the word became a badge of honour, uniting the Republican's base. To argue that one word cost Mrs. Clinton the election is foolish. But it certainly did not hurt her opponent." That doesn't seem incompatible with saying, as Hessan did, that it was the single biggest moment when voters switched from 'undecided' to 'Trump'; merely that it wasn't sufficient to cost her the election, but that it united her opponent's base without hurting him.

So, no; strictly speaking, I'm not aware that other quotes in that same citation give opposite opinions -- and so your apology is accepted, I guess?

(Oh, wait; there's also the quoted question from Cooper to her: "how can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions of Americans?" -- prompting Clinton to reply that her argument isn't with his supporters, but with him. Now, anyone familiar with the transcript knows full well that she was taking issue with various of his supporters when she said they (a) could be put into a basket of deplorables and (b) were irredeemable; but put that aside: strictly speaking, nothing in that exchange strikes me as being in any way incompatible with Hessan's conclusion.)

(At that, there's the bit where it -- gets compared to Nye Bevan's "vermin" remark, which likewise sparked merchandise worn by folks who badge-of-honor-ed it? Not really seeing how that'd be at all opposed to Hessan's claim, either.)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:32 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
So, are we given to understand that these same people heard Trump speeches? These delicate and vulnerable snowflakes are bruised by Hillary's rough rhetoric? But can heal themselves in the balm of Trump's temperate and reasoned discourse?

Yeah, guess so, guess anybody exposed to Hillary crude and ignorant bluster would prefer the decorum and civility of Il Douche. Don't know how I missed that.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:40 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I dunno. Take a duplicate Obama, but white, and does he win? I don't think so. We can never know for sure, of course, but I doubt White Obama becomes president.
Well he did. His name is William Jefferson Clinton, formerly Blythe.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:51 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
So, are we given to understand that these same people heard Trump speeches? These delicate and vulnerable snowflakes are bruised by Hillary's rough rhetoric? But can heal themselves in the balm of Trump's temperate and reasoned discourse?

Yeah, guess so, guess anybody exposed to Hillary crude and ignorant bluster would prefer the decorum and civility of Il Douche. Don't know how I missed that.
See, this right here might go a long way to explaining the loss.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument -- and because it's true -- that he crudely blusters while insulting folks who are here illegally; and he crudely and insultingly blusters about Muslim furriners he'd sure like to ban from entering the country.

And let's figure as well that she responds by explaining that millions of people are deplorable -- indeed, irredeemable -- but, thankfully, aren't America.

One of those insulted groups has the right to vote in the Trump-v-Clinton election.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.