"... and somebody is on steroids and somebody is not, and then blaming the person not on steroids,”
Said Adrienne Hines, chair of the Democratic Party in Ottawa County, Ohio, quoted in "The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say/In key battleground states, calls for help weren’t taken seriously enough" in HuffPo.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
So the argument is that she lost because they didn't allocate their resources to the swing states. The assumption they are making is that there were additional resources to be allocated. I suspect that is not correct.
Does anyone think that they didn't spend everything they had?
"As Democrats begin to repair their party and learn from the shortcomings of the Clinton campaign, one of the primary arguments being made is that candidates have to show up if they expect to win."
It really doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe the reason so many people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton is that they hate her filthy stinking guts and everything she stands for. They seem quite certain that if she had just shouted a few more lies into a few more microphones, and maybe passed out some free BBQ chicken, she could have won.
Who knows, maybe they're right.
“There are only so many times you can get folks excited about Chelsea Clinton,” explained one Wisconsin Democrat.
I'd say even once is pretty good.
It is like being at the Olympics and somebody is on steroids and somebody is not, and then blaming the person not on steroids...
Well, it's like that if steroids were not against the rules.
In this article it says that they did have lots of canvassers in Pennsylvania where they also lost as thet did in Wisconsin. The difficulty in Pennsylvania was that the Dems turned out the vote in Philadelphia but it wasn't enough because even more people turned out in exurbs and rural areas. Without canvassers and without buses, Trump turned out more people. So even if the Dems had sent people to Wisconsin it might not have saved them.
But by all means, Democrats, tell yourselves that it was only a failure or organization, not a failure of message. I agree with you that Hillary was the right and perfect messenger for your 2016 message: "This is the New Normal - Suck it up, flyover losers."
Her campaign had sixty million remaining per the last filing. Her outside groups had another twenty million. Those aren't final reports -- but I doubt cash was an issue.
I will once again rely on one of my favorite descriptors for Hillary's actions: HUBRIS. Here's what wikipedia has to say: Hubris describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous over-confidence.[1] In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris. Hillary's entire history is one of Hubris and the Gods finally got sick of it!
My first encounter with Hubris was in high school English class reading the Mayor of Casterbridge. It made a lasting impression.
Lousy candidate, lousy campaign, poor leadership, lousy message, overconfident little jerk running the campaign, outworked, out hustled, overconfidence throughout the organization, playing by outdated rules, sexual predator for husband, no feel for real people, criminal behavior, congenital liar, the Curse of Obama. I know there have to be more. Help!
And you notice the utterly demented reaction from the left to Trump's victory. It's just like Wisconsin after Act 10 - only other states have much nastier leftists. So Trump supporters are getting beaten up. But noise in the streets, as we found in Wisconsin, does not mean lack of success for our side in the legislative chambers or lack of support for our positions. It just means the left has no winning strategy. The left had no idea of how people felt about university-student snowflakes snivelling into play-do and it still features them in its efforts to win support from the nation's adults. And it is trying to win support by riots. The media will like the riots, thinking they indicate popular support and boost ratings. But anarchy will merely guarantee larger victories for Republicans in 2018 and 2020. The question is jobs, good schools, safe streets and a reasonable foreign policy - not who riots and who the NYT likes.
Clinton's problem was she didn't have Lena Dunham out to WI to shill for her. That would've helped, and we can ask hope that next time, we'll hear more from Dunham and her ilk.
Today I was down at the office of a client, a moderately conservative think tank. I hadn't spoken to the director in some time, & when he saw me, he asked me what I thought about the election. Among other things we discussed, I said that, while it took them long enough, Republicans are starting to get the measure of Trump, but that the Democrats still truly have not faced up to just how fundamentally flawed Hillary was.
He said "They want to blame it all on Comey."
I said "If you want to have the FBI stay out of your business, try not having your own email server in your basement".
"Exactly!"
Calls for help to Clinton were ignored? Now where have I heard that before?????
Trump campaigned harder. Hillary was low energy Jeb
Clinton's biggest problem was that she wasn't an appealing candidate that had clear executive experience and was scandal free.
There was no fixing that other than not nominating her. The arrogance was in the Democrats insisting that it was Hillary's turn when there was significant baggage that wasn't going to give her an advantage over anyone, even one of the most baggage-laden opponents.
Hillary's problem was they were so arrogant as to have her as a candidate to begin with. Democrats have a problem with entrenched corruption preventing really capable candidates from rising and running.
Hubris, indeed.
It's like nominating a high school track star for an Olympic spot because their dad won gold in the Decathlon twenty years ago. The surprise isn't that they lost, is why those connections beat out other much more capable competitors.
"A touch of arrogance"? It is to laugh. This is the bunch that thinks the only possible reason to vote against HRC was misogyny.
@ Fabi Well isn't that a handy little nest egg for Hilary and Bill as they ride off into the sunset!
wildswan said...
"And you notice the utterly demented reaction from the left to Trump's victory."
Well, that's an interesting point. It's as if they thought they were watching a Hollywood movie, and everyone knows that the Heroine cannot actually lose. The arrogant bastard will get an opportunity to display just how evil he really is, but Good will triumph in the end. And then there'll be the Hillarious payoff scene, where he says something particularly arrogant and foul, with a self-satisfied smirk, and then she says something simultaneously deep and high-minded, and very public-spirited of course, but also really zingy, looking beautiful and radiant and self-confident and all, but by no means arrogant, quite humble really, for a Woman who just Broke The Glass Ceiling, and then she -- Kicks him in the balls! Ha-ha!
That's kind of what they had in mind. Guess they want their money back.
The people rejected Hillary soundly in 2008. The Democrats sacrificed the party and its future to her feeling of entitlement. Now there is a cottage industry of writing articles about Why Hillary Lost. Well, she had her shot in 2008 and lost. That should have been enough Period. If she wants to know who to blame, she only need look in the mirror, if she dare.
Good point. Hillary was on high dosages of Levodopa that had to be timed just right to last for 6 hours until she had to crash and sleep. Hence she could not do 3 to 5 rallies a day for weeks on end.
It's like being at the Olympics and somebody has tremendous athletic ability and somebody is the wife of previous gold medalist...
Had Hillary mingled with the deplorables, she would have won. Both Obama's anecdote about Iowa and Trump vastly out visiting Hillary along the eastern seaboard tell the story.
Another observation is that the left's obsession with campaign finance, especially in regards to advertising, clearly led them to believe their own bullshit. Shaking lots of hands, holding lots of babies and eating lots of shitty food is still the key to winning elections.
Lance Armstrong was unavailable for comment.
As others have basically said, she was a lousy candidate in many ways -- except money and media coverage -- she's not well (alcohol?, illness?) and she was not up for the fight. If you watched Trump the last few weeks, up to that last late night in Ann Arbor, he had energy and focus. In a close election that was easily the difference.
I can only hope we are through with them, the love affair for Bill and Hillary is hard to explain beyond ideological delusion on a big scale. Is that the best we can do for a twenty five year ass kissing fest?
So the excuse was... Hillary is a dumbass?
"Well it costs a lot to win, even more to lose.
You and me better spend some time wondering,
What to choose.
Goes to show,
Ya don't ever know,
Watch each card you play,
And play it slow.
Don't you let that"
Clinton ignoring calls for help. Why golly. I've never heard such a thing.
I didn't click through so I don't know if the Huffpo writer gave any indication that they understood the connection.
"We were dealing with somebody who could say whatever he wanted." If they were so certain Hillary would win, then shouldn't she have been able to say whatever she wanted? And what did she want to say that she couldn't say and that would have helped her win the election if she had said it? (And why am I expecting anything they say to make sense?)
"And as NBC News reported, during the final 100 days of the election, Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87."
So he outthought her and he outworked her. But she was great at debate prep. Really great on all those days nobody saw or heard from her.
(The debates were a draw, which was a plus for Trump.)
Just exactly how does one get into this guild, Guild? I'm thinking of joining.
"Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87." We have yet to get the full story of how Hill spent her time, what was wrong with her, and how many drugs she took. Maybe at some point an enterprising reporter will pierce the veil.
I thought they had determined that less exposure was more.
It's not difficult to imagine what Hillary saw in Bill. Bill was self-confident, brash, and smart in a conventional way.
But what did Bill ever see in Hillary?
But what did Bill ever see in Hillary?
It is amazing how good people who wish to misuse other people are at finding a person who is susceptible to their manipulations.
"tcrosse said...
Well, she had her shot in 2008 and lost. That should have been enough Period. If she wants to know who to blame, she only need look in the mirror, if she dare."
"Because I'm not good enough, I'm not smart enough, and doggonit, people don't like me!"
I'm not good at Photoshopping, but I haven't seen this one yet and I'm surprised:
Evita's face on Sally Fields' Oscar win, you hate me, you really hate me!
I've despised Hillary since '90.
Throughout her entire campaign, Hillary did not bake a singe cookie. And therein lies her problem.
Blogger Paddy O said...
Hubris, indeed.
It's like nominating a high school track star for an Olympic spot because their dad won gold in the Decathlon twenty years ago. The surprise isn't that they lost, is why those connections beat out other much more capable competitors
Who did Hillary beat? Have you seen the Dem bench? It looks like Green Bay's defensive backfield.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
It's like being at the Olympics and somebody has tremendous athletic ability and somebody is the wife of previous gold medalist...
11/16/16, 10:04 PM
It's like the finals of the 100m dash and one runner is the overweight wife of a great sprinter and the other arrives at the track drunk and staggering, yelling at the officials when they try to line him up in his starting position.
The Democratic apparat is presenting this as a failure of marketing, even though the candidate outspent her opponent by a wide margin, had the unified support of that party apparat, and insanely massive support from mainstream media.
Ockham's Razor notes that sometimes all the marketing in the universe will fail to sell an unattractive product. As Coca-Cola learned when it spent a fortune marketing New Coke.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा