No, he got a tremendously disproportionate share of television time from the moment he descended the escalator to the crowd of people paid to be there and cheer. There were times during the primaries when the networks cut away from Bernie or Hillary to a podium shot waiting for the Sexual Predator to make his appearance. One time they stayed with him as he hawked his steaks and other overpriced products. Hillary got a constant barrage of “Emails! Emails! Emails!”. The press talked about emails more than the rest of the issues combined during the entire primary season. Yes, Twitler was good for ratings and the networks showed what the public wanted to see. Much to our regret today.
I don’t always agree with Pantastic but I kinda agree with him (at least I think I do) on this point.
She may have gotten more votes, but so what? Everyone knew the rules going into the contest, and the rules have been established since the day the Constitution went into effect. And they’re not some kind of riddle or prank that the Founding Fathers played on their posterity for shits and giggles - there are legitimate reasons for its existence even now, save the faithless elector - that shit has to go.
Hillary Clinton lost the election for the same reason George H W Bush lost to her husband. You don’t win presidential elections by going around the country and telling everyone that you’re a better person than your opponent – partisans might care but most voters aren’t sold. Voters want to be flattered. They want to know that you’re talking to them. Hillary never did. She was always playing self-defense in interviews and, like the Atlanta Falcons, just trying to run out the clock in the 4th quarter, which brings up another point: voters ultimately want to see someone project strength. They saw Trump projecting strength by defying his critics, whereas Clinton tried to placate them. It’s not fair, but everyone knows those rules going into an election, and certainly someone with as much political experience as Hillary Clinton should have.
Yeah, the Clintons should have gone to town on his Sexual Predating with consenting women. Dunno why Hillary didn’t talk this up.
More publicity by itself is nothing. People can get publicity for all the wrong reasons. Trump, in fact, got tons of negative publicity – yet he won. He got free publicity but it’s nothing that Hillary Clinton or any other opponent could not have overcome. In years past, Donald Trump would have been laughed out of existence, but times have changed. In fact Donald Trump was indeed sent into political oblivion in 2000 when he ran as a Reform Party candidate. Nobody took the Reform Party seriously then. Nobody took Ralph Nader seriously then, except for being a spoiler. Nobody would have taken this year’s Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders seriously back then either. But times have indeed changed. Voters are confused and frustrated with the state of the union and were in a mood to shake things up.
It’s important for the left to accept Donald Trump’s victory as legitimate. I never thought I’d agree with Jared Kushner, but those who continue to question the legitimacy of Trump’s win on election night are basically refusing to accept not only Trump’s victory but the will of those who voted for him. Progressives cannot continue to just close themselves off and live in their little hipster enclaves in New York, Austin, or San Francisco. They absolutely must get out into the amber waves of grain and start talking to the people who used to be slam dunk votes for the democratic party. They don’t have to agree with everything that’s on their minds but they’d damn well better start talking with them and at least listen.
AFAICT we are in agreement. This cite says that Trump got 15% more coverage overall, and that was because he said outrageous things. The coverage of the general election was overwhelmingly negative for both (although more negative for Trump than for Hillary during the general election).
Although I don’t see how 15% more coverage translates into twice as much free media.
Regards,
Shodan
It was a waste of time – very few people voted for Donald Trump not knowing who he is. By contrast, I think they knew damn well who he was and just didn’t give a toss. They voted for Trump because Trump flattered much of middle, white, Christian America. They didn’t have to listen to people on the left tell them how racist, sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic they were, and they didn’t have to watch their representative on the right make facial contortions trying to defend them. They had their guy who unapologetically told them, be whoever the hell you wanna be.
It was a waste of time – very few people voted for Donald Trump not knowing who he is. By contrast, I think they knew damn well who he was and just didn’t give a toss. They voted for Trump because Trump flattered much of middle, white, Christian America. They didn’t have to listen to people on the left tell them how racist, sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic they were, and they didn’t have to watch their representative on the right make facial contortions trying to defend them. They had their guy who unapologetically told them, be whoever the hell you wanna be.
[/QUOTE]
Evan Drake’s post was sarcastic. Think “sexual predating with consenting women”, then “Clinton”. It’ll come.
I’ve said it before and will again; you get votes by convincing people there’s a reason they should vote for you. It sounds simple but it’s a surprisingly oft-forgotten thing.
Clinton failed to make a compelling case, and she REALLY failed to make a compelling case in the Rust Belt states that beat her. Trump made a case there. We might think his case was built on lies and nonsense, but at least he was selling something.
Perhaps if you had read my cite you’d know.
Question: Why are we even debating this? Does anyone who thinks that Trump won by “luck” proposing that HRC should run again in 2020? I mean, that’s what this thread is about-- whether she will run again. Do you want her to?
All joking aside, strategically you are correct. HRC didn’t push that issue because it would have been pushed right back at her.
I’ve heard a wide range of opinions here regarding Hillary, from very positive to very negative. No one suggests it would be a good idea (for the Democrats) for her to fun in 2020. I’m sure she’s hearing the same.
I did read it. I didn’t see any explanation of how to solve for x where 2x = x + .15x.
Regards,
Shodan
2x = x + .15x
2x - x = .15x
x = .15x
x - .15x = 0
.85x = 0
x = 0/.85
x = 0.
Pretty simple solve. Thought you were smart, Shodan.
Why go thru all that algebraic nonsense? Clearly x must be 0, otherwise 2 = 1.15
But in this case X can’t be zero, because both sides had a non-zero amount of money. So Shodan is right that the equation makes no sense.
And therefore neither Hillary nor Trump got any media coverage at all.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t argue with math!
Hey, nobody said there would be Algebra (hmmm… Algebra… Arabic word, I always knew no good could come from it…)
“You can’t beat something with nothing”. The problem was that many of us failed to see what the “something” and the “nothing” were.
Countering the argument that she must not try again due to having shown to be a lousy campaigner for the presidency when facing an active, motivated opposition. So Obama beat her because he was too damn good, but since Trump has nothing good about him then he must have luckily blundered and cheated his way to the win.
Or so I suppose it goes. Whatever makes you all feel better.
But EITHER way, as a past supporter, no, I don’t want her on the ballot again. She had two shots at it as a presumptive frontrunner. Both times the person with years of experience who “had the negatives already baked in” got blindsided. You’ve had your time, madam Secretary/Senator. The nation and the party thank you, and look forward to your advice and counsel as a distinguished citizen. Help us find someone who CAN take over as champion for sane leadership, and we’ll find the way to vindicate your name and legacy, but let go.