|
Lt. Danger posted:No, you dummies, I'm not talking about bad polling data or whatever, like if Clinton just had more accurate info she would have made the right choices. There were deep structural factors at play here, too many perhaps to be mitigated. You can't campaign-rally your way out of the insider/outsider narrative, or 1990s conservative talk radio, or end-of-history political complacency. When you lose 6 million votes into thin air compared to the last presidential election for your party, you're a really bad candidate no matter how you spin it, yeah. The polling thing is just weird to me, and maaaaaaybe because it was so close Clinton could have won a squeaker against a terrible opponent who lost 1.2 million votes compared to  if she wasn't totally clueless about what was happening. But the big story has to be that Democratic base wanted nothing to do with her in a year when the Republicans were running someone historically terrible and scary as gently caress, and she had bottomless resources.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
The big sin of Clinton's campaign was complacency. At some point they very clearly concluded that they had the whole thing in the bag, and therefore felt that they could ignore warning signs they had no business ignoring. And when you've convinced yourself that you've already won you're in the biggest danger of all, which is something that a supposedly professional and competent campaign staff should not have let happen. Hell, this one chinese guy figured this poo poo out about two and a half milennia ago. It's not hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Relating to Trump's ability to win women voters, despite his overt sexism. I read a short interview from a poor, white, working class female Trump voter who said that if she were ever in a room alone with him, she'd punch him in the face because she thinks he treats women like poo poo, but she still voted for him because Clinton offered her nothing economically, and he did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The big sin of Clinton's campaign was complacency. At some point they very clearly concluded that they had the whole thing in the bag, and therefore felt that they could ignore warning signs they had no business ignoring. And when you've convinced yourself that you've already won you're in the biggest danger of all, which is something that a supposedly professional and competent campaign staff should not have let happen. Dude they looked at the totality of the data and concluded what any reasonable person would have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:No, you dummies, I'm not talking about bad polling data or whatever, like if Clinton just had more accurate info she would have made the right choices. There were deep structural factors at play here, too many perhaps to be mitigated. You can't campaign-rally your way out of the insider/outsider narrative, or 1990s conservative talk radio, or end-of-history political complacency. She lost MI by like 10k votes. There's no structural problem. If she was made aware by accurate polling numbers I'm sure she could have found the 10k votes somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
There was no reason for Michigan to be that close in the first place. Rather, there were lots of reasons Michigan was that close, but the Democratic campaign didn't see or didn't want to see them (e.g. because even the promise of radical economic reform was off the table). I think sean10mm is right that it was so close that one or two days could have turned the entire thing around - but why was it so close in the first place? National elections are chaotic systems, but they're not arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:There was no reason for Michigan to be that close in the first place. They were so close because she was doing all the wrong poo poo because she was flying blind. She had no idea what she was doing was wrong and no idea what she should be doing to correct it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think sean10mm is right that it was so close that one or two days could have turned the entire thing around - but why was it so close in the first place? National elections are chaotic systems, but they're not arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:They were so close because she was doing all the wrong poo poo because she was flying blind. She had no idea what she was doing was wrong and no idea what she should be doing to correct it. Don't overstate things - her unfavorability was a huge problem, and that's a major part of what made things close. She lost for a bunch of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
its really disturbing/disappointing seeing all the people try to act like the election was just the result of some campaign mismanagement. hillary lost millions of democratic votes because they didn't show up. trump was historically bad, underperforming romney too. but those two things don't come from the same place. its easy to see large segments of the republican base hating trump and refusing to vote for him, he's a transparent clown. but with hillary it was something else entirely. those six million votes didn't disappear because of poor campaign management. they evaporated because people didn't like her or what she was peddling or a combination of both. i think this election very much was a referendum on neoliberal economics because the republican numbers line up with "slightly distasteful republican" while the democrat numbers line up with rejection of candidate and platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:its really disturbing/disappointing seeing all the people try to act like the election was just the result of some campaign mismanagement. hillary lost millions of democratic votes because they didn't show up. trump was historically bad, underperforming romney too. but those two things don't come from the same place. The campaign problems maybe explain tens of thousands of votes going one way or the other in key areas. Like maybe a better campaign gets more votes in key counties in swings states by not wasting time in states or counties that are in the bag or are unwinnable. However, she underperformed compared to Obama 2012 (a bad year for his presidency, remember!) by MILLIONS of votes. She lost like 5x as many Democrats as Trump lost Republicans vs. 2012. That's insane. The real problem is orders of magnitude bigger than can be explained by "bad polling hurt Clinton's ability to make tactical decisions."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I don't think anyone is claiming that bad polling is the single reason she lost, just another one of the perfect storm of things that had to go wrong for her to lose. There's also these "obvious signs" that 99.9999% of people missed but no one has bothered to explain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I don't think anyone is claiming that bad polling is the single reason she lost, just another one of the perfect storm of things that had to go wrong for her to lose. I think I'm just a bit wary of that phrase "perfect storm". A Clinton loss wasn't unforeseeable. We knew Clinton had baggage, we knew she wasn't charismatic, we knew people were suffering under neoliberalism, we knew Wall Street was unpopular, etc. etc... we just assumed it wouldn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The campaign problems maybe explain tens of thousands of votes going one way or the other in key areas. Like maybe a better campaign gets more votes in key counties in swings states by not wasting time in states or counties that are in the bag or are unwinnable. You can also choose policy positions based on polling data, and Clinton was exceedingly likely to do so. She tried to be in the middle and attract voters from across the aisle. She should have run further to the left (where I think her real positions are on a number of things, BTW) because the other side was already lost in this election. But she had no reason to think that her platform was being rejected, in large part because of the polling data. Lt. Danger posted:I think I'm just a bit wary of that phrase "perfect storm". A Clinton loss wasn't unforeseeable. We knew Clinton had baggage, we knew she wasn't charismatic, we knew people were suffering under neoliberalism, we knew Wall Street was unpopular, etc. etc... we just assumed it wouldn't matter. It's not an assumption if it's backed up by the data! The only assumption was that the data was good. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Yeah, she was underperforming for whatever reason (personality, baggage, etc) but didn't realize that due to the unexpectedly inaccurate polling. Had she known how she was actually doing in the key states, I think she could've pretty easily flipped them back with some campaigning and pandering, given how small the margins there were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think I'm just a bit wary of that phrase "perfect storm". A Clinton loss wasn't unforeseeable. We knew Clinton had baggage, we knew she wasn't charismatic, we knew people were suffering under neoliberalism, we knew Wall Street was unpopular, etc. etc... we just assumed it wouldn't matter. it was her time. what else could possibly matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:it was her time. what else could possibly matter? This isn't an accurate description of how Clinton treated the campaign at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
It just baffles and saddens me that anyone with Democratic or left leanings could fail to appreciate that this election decided the fate of the supreme court. Even if you think both candidates are equally terrible on every other issue, that Clinton is uninspiring and uncharismatic and untrustowrthy and maddeningly centrist/neoliberal/status quo, you can't get off your butt to pull the lever for Roe v. Wade, against Citizen's United, against gerrymandering that locks in republican power? How do Democrats or leftists think their hypothetical ideal candidate is ever gonna get poo poo done, even if they get elected, with a hostile court? It's not like this issue wasn't made crystal clear by both candidates, how much more do you have to do to get that point across? Sorry I have nothing substantive to say, I appreciate the stuff in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
America just wasn't ready for a Clinton president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This isn't an accurate description of how Clinton treated the campaign at all. Ah I'm sorry. The candidate notorious for taking positions based entirely on what polls said was doomed by those very polls failing her. They were her One Ring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Ah I'm sorry. The candidate notorious for taking positions based entirely on what polls said was doomed by those very polls failing her. They were her One Ring. Again, no. There's numerous things that were problems for her. I was just discussing one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The big sin of Clinton's campaign was complacency. At some point they very clearly concluded that they had the whole thing in the bag, and therefore felt that they could ignore warning signs they had no business ignoring. And when you've convinced yourself that you've already won you're in the biggest danger of all, which is something that a supposedly professional and competent campaign staff should not have let happen. Leading up to the election, everyone, Trump included, thought the question was whether Hillary would win, or win in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:it was her time. what else could possibly matter? Yeah I think she did her best. She gave several speeches with pneumonia that she could have missed and she collapsed at a ground zero ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think I'm just a bit wary of that phrase "perfect storm". A Clinton loss wasn't unforeseeable. We knew Clinton had baggage, we knew she wasn't charismatic, we knew people were suffering under neoliberalism, we knew Wall Street was unpopular, etc. etc... we just assumed it wouldn't matter. Hmm, I somewhat agree, but at the same time the polls were what they were. Absent those you're more or less relying on intuition. Maybe the clear enthusiasm for Trump, for example, should have been more of a warning...but he actually underperformed Mitt Romney. It's also worth pointing out the way in which the polls wrong--the general election polls, and polls in many states, were fairly accurate as far as these things go; they ended up being catastrophically wrong in precisely the battleground states that Hillary needed to win. I do agree that "perfect storm" is a bad way of looking at it. The above wouldn't have mattered if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate. gently caress, if she'd even been slightly better she might well have won, and if she'd been decent she would have run away. She didn't need anything close to Obama's '12 numbers to win. That said, what I think people didn't pay enough attention to was how delicate her electoral math was (and to his credit Nate Silver talked about this a lot). She had to win PA, WI, MI, (or replace them with FL/NC which was clearly dicey the polls weren't wrong there). Obama in '12 had what seemed to be a narrow lead, but he was ahead all over the place--there would have to have been big errors everywhere for him not to win. This time, the errors were much more likely to be correlated, because PA, WI, and MI are somewhat similar demographically. The fact that pollsters relied on bad turnout assumptions for Democrats also hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's not an assumption if it's backed up by the data! The only assumption was that the data was good. I don't think you need polls to identify those and other factors in Clinton's defeat. Some factors you won't get an honest poll result on. Some factors aren't really quantifiable at all. How do you poll the fact that FPTP interacts badly with more than two parties? Why do you need a poll to tell you that Clinton doesn't have charisma (or for that matter, what 'charisma' actually means and how gender norms might play into that)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
postmortem saying Trump camp thinks Comey delivered rust belt to them https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/796733051271282688 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You can also choose policy positions based on polling data, and Clinton was exceedingly likely to do so. The problem is that if you go in for this strategy, you're liable to end up being viewed as an unprincipled and untrustworthy triangulating bullshitter. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Leading up to the election, everyone, Trump included, thought the question was whether Hillary would win, or win in a landslide. Exactly. When you've convinced yourself that you've won already, you inevitably start making mistakes. See the Clinton campaign 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:They were so close because she was doing all the wrong poo poo because she was flying blind. She had no idea what she was doing was wrong and no idea what she should be doing to correct it. Polling shouldn't be the first and last indication of popular opinion. Really, Occupy Wallstreet should have been the first red flag. Bernie the second, Brexit the third, and Trump's success over establishment republicans the last. At some point the democratic party became the party of corporate America and the financial sector instead of the poor and working classes, and when we were all bragging about how Hillary was outspending Trump 2:1 in every state, no one stopped to think about where that money was coming from and how hosed that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Squinty posted:Polling shouldn't be the first and last indication of popular opinion. Really, Occupy Wallstreet should have been the first red flag. Bernie the second, Brexit the third, and Trump's success over establishment republicans the last. At some point the democratic party became the party of corporate America and the financial sector instead of the poor and working classes, and when we were all bragging about how Hillary was outspending Trump 2:1 in every state, no one stopped to think about where that money was coming from and how hosed that is. No I don't agree. All those things you listed aren't even quantitative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:No I don't agree. All those things you listed aren't even quantitative. Politics isn't quantitative for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:It just baffles and saddens me that anyone with Democratic or left leanings could fail to appreciate that this election decided the fate of the supreme court. Even if you think both candidates are equally terrible on every other issue, that Clinton is uninspiring and uncharismatic and untrustowrthy and maddeningly centrist/neoliberal/status quo, you can't get off your butt to pull the lever for Roe v. Wade, against Citizen's United, against gerrymandering that locks in republican power? How do Democrats or leftists think their hypothetical ideal candidate is ever gonna get poo poo done, even if they get elected, with a hostile court? It's not like this issue wasn't made crystal clear by both candidates, how much more do you have to do to get that point across? Stack the court. It's an elitist institution working against the American people. Populism will return us to power and we will use it To bend the right to our will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Politics isn't quantitative for gently caress's sake. Well look. If you want to make a good decision you have to have the right information. The best information is quantitative. As in choice A is 50 and choice B is 20. Therefore I choose choice A since 50>20. Of course life is imperfect and those numbers may or may not be correct. But given the choice between decisions from numbers or things not quantitative I would always choose the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Exactly. When you've convinced yourself that you've won already, you inevitably start making mistakes. See the Clinton campaign 2016. Alternate take: not enough time to undo damage from Comey letter https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/796733051271282688
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Alternate take: not enough time to undo damage from Comey letter It's not like the whole e-mail shitstorm was unknown to the Clinton campaign, you know? To assume that you've got the whole election in the bag with a potential problem like that still hanging around is just the kind of complacendy I'm talking about. Vladimir Putin posted:Well look. If you want to make a good decision you have to have the right information. The best information is quantitative. As in choice A is 50 and choice B is 20. Therefore I choose choice A since 50>20. Of course life is imperfect and those numbers may or may not be correct. But given the choice between decisions from numbers or things not quantitative I would always choose the numbers. That is no reason to dismiss qualitative information, especially when said information gives you reason to suspect your quantitative information. Otherwise you'll gently caress up when somebody has hosed up the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
At a purely tactical level, the fact that Trump had one path to victory helped him; he knew which states he had to win, what demographics in those states he had to get to turn out, what messages they wanted to hear. And he knew, and could arrange, what time a news story would need to be reported to sway that set of voters. At the end of the day, Hilary went into politics poor, and came out rich. All that was necessary was to make that the last message heard before the polls opened. The wierd thing is the lack of impact of GOTV, ground game. Was that all misspent or misallocated? How can you not do better than polls if you are spending more actively raising turnout?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
If the Dems want to win another major campaign they have to A)Focus on economic, truly progressive economic issues that benefit EVERYONE instead of throwing bones at working and middle class families in the form of tax credits or adjusting college loan rates, rather than social issues, and B)stop playing identity politics and letting folks like Lena Dunham run around talking the extinction of entire groups of Americans with the Democratic seal of approval. That poo poo pisses people off and gives them no reason to vote for the Dems. The Culture Wars is hurting the Dems when they don't have a charismatic figure running at the top of the ticket. The bigger question is what do the Dems do to win state elections and governments, because they currently only hold what, 10 governorships?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:No I don't agree. All those things you listed aren't even quantitative. The Michigan primary is a quantitative as it gets. The polls didn't know what the gently caress was going on, African Americans were voting for Sanders with higher margins than anywhere else. It was a huge red flag, she lost both, and a lot of people didn't turn out the second time. Crazy Joe Wilson posted:The bigger question is what do the Dems do to win state elections and governments, because they currently only hold what, 10 governorships? Beg Howard Dean to come back. That is my strategy Dmitri-9 fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Beg Howard Dean to come back. That is my strategy https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/796838538641833990
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is no need to beg I messaged him on FB this morning so it must have worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Obviously Russian hackers and voter fraud stole the election. Prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:41
|
|
