What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Based on Hillfolk posts her message was apparently "I don't back marijuana decriminalization because it's what young white males want."

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 00:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:43

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

OK I looked into what Hillary herself said, apparently the real message was "Banks kept us strong after 9/11."

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 00:56

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Wait, there's another take. I'm now hearing her final message was, "Hope and absolutely no change."

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 00:58

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Condiv posted:

hillary's gonna make republicans mad

hillary has spent her entire life being attacked from the right. this will motivate her to all sorts of exciting policy & campaign action.

any day now.

it'll be inspirational.

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny day now.

she'll really take it to them! she's a fighter.

any. day. now.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 02:01

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

hillary's greatest strength is that 60% of the country harbors an overwhelming and irrational hatred of her. as a liberal, i feel this is good for our message.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 02:03

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

shes constantly mired in insane scandals. invincible, i tell you!

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 02:05

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Jeb!: "You have to lead with a steady hand, and that's what I'll do."

Clinton: *furiously taking notes*

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 02:09

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Student loans? Yes, we have a plan for that. Young entrepreneurs will be able to defer student loans and qualify for loan forgiveness. My wonklings have assured me this will increase economic output by 0.225%/year, and frankly it's important to reward the most productive members of society.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 02:12

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Baloogan posted:

ca macho
ca MACHO
CAH MACHO cah macho CAH CMACHO cmachaocamMCOAHCOACMAOCHAOCMAOCH

id unironically, seriously, unironically, unironically in the fullest extent of the word vote for camacho

You'd say this every day then vote for the libertarian hack in the end.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2017 04:06

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

comedyblissoption posted:

#imwithher because she's such a Policy Wonk

just dont look too closely at what those policies are

No-fly zones are still hip, right? Gotta win our little proxy war. Hell, I was talking to Kissinger the other day,

# ¿ Feb 26, 2017 04:11

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/for.2016.14.issue-4/for-2016-0040/for-2016-0040.xml?format=INT

quote:

There was a huge imbalance in advertising at the presidential level in 2016, with Clinton and her allies pummeling Trump and his allies in almost every media market in the country. Pro-Clinton advertising dominated on local broadcast, national cable and even local cable television. Decades of research (e.g. Zaller 1992) suggests that in the face of such imbalanced message flows, the advantaged candidate should benefit at the polls. And yet in spite of those advantages, Hillary Clinton lost many of the states that saw the most political advertising. Is the message from 2016 that political ads just do not work anymore?

Although the impact of advertising in 2016 on the outcome of the general election race was likely minimal, we urge caution in concluding that television advertising is no longer effective. For one, we never expect advertising to have a large effect in a presidential race. Research has demonstrated that advertising effects are smaller in presidential contests than in other down-ballot races (Ridout and Franz 2007), and this may be especially true in a presidential race that features two well-known candidates, a former First Lady and a celebrity who has been on Americans� television screens for decades. Because voters have a large store of pre-existing information about the candidates, they are less open to influence by advertising. Nevertheless, advertising is an important way in which candidates can talk directly to voters, and research does suggest that advertising advantages do correlate with movement in the polls (Ridout and Franz 2007; Sides and Vavreck 2014). Despite the fact that pro-Clinton advertising dominated the airwaves overall, in several of the pivotal states � especially Michigan and Wisconsin � Donald Trump actually had ad advantages on local broadcast up until the very last week of the campaign, which may well have mattered.

Second, in a presidential race, advertising must compete with almost limitless media coverage of the race, which tends to neutralize the impact of the advertising. Perhaps the intense media coverage in 2016 was driven less by the messages of political advertising as it has been in the past and more by Donald Trump�s Twitter account. Although the Clinton campaign may have viewed the news media�s focus on Donald Trump as beneficial to them, they also claimed to have trouble getting coverage of policy statements. Yet the Clinton campaign itself did not focus on policy in its own messaging either, a tactic that very well may have hurt their candidate, which leads to our next point.10

Third, all ads are not equally effective. Even though the ad advantage may have been in Clinton�s favor, it does no good if the message does not resonate with voters. Of course, the jury is still out on how effective Clinton�s message was, but evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007). In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump�s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media�s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice. Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton�s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making (Mattes and Redlawsk 2014). These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media�s lack of focus on Clinton�s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump. As such, it may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.

While advertising patterns in the 2016 presidential race were certainly a departure from the past, it seemed to be business as usual in the House and Senate. The tone of these races was very similar to the past few election cycles, as was the volume of advertising. And the sponsorship of advertising, with outside groups taking on a heavier role in the Senate than House, also reflected the past few elections. Indeed, it is almost surprising that so much has stayed the same with television advertising given the recent rise of digital media and social media.

But will down-ballot candidates in the future read the outcome of the 2016 presidential race as a signal that spending millions on television advertising just is not necessary? While many might consider such an approach in 2018, we think it would be unwise for candidates to use Trump as a model. For sure, future campaigns will invest heavily in new approaches to reach voters, from local cable to digital and web-based advertising. But at least in 2016, it seems that these additional tactics are viewed as just an �add-on� way to reach voters (a complement if you will) rather than as a replacement for more traditional ad buys on local broadcast stations. In sum, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton violated so many of our rules of political science that generalizing from it strikes us as risky � at least for now.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:14

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Bernie didn't win Iowa.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 06:19

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/18/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-white-men/

WAPO 3/18/16 posted:

I�m not sure who the �Democratic leaders� are who think that, because the only one the article quotes is Bill Richardson, who�s been out of politics for a few years and frankly was never considered a strategic genius to begin with. But here�s the truth: Hillary Clinton doesn�t need white men.

Let�s be more specific. Clinton will have the support of tens of millions of white men. But she doesn�t need to do any better among them than any Democrat has, and even if she does worse, she�ll probably be completely fine.

That�s because whites are declining as a proportion of the electorate as the country grows more diverse with each passing year. In 1992, just 24 years ago, whites made up 87 percent of the voters, according to exit polls. By 2012 the figure had declined to 72 percent. Since women vote at slightly higher rates than men, white men made up around 35 percent of the voters.

Those numbers will be lower this year, which means that even if nothing changes in how non-whites vote, Republicans will need to keep increasing their margins among whites to even stay where they are overall � in other words, to keep losing by the same amount.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 08:33

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

LinYutang posted:

I'm still befuddled about why she thought keeping that foundation open was a good idea despite the obvious signs it would be a scandal factory

I don't think she was very cautious at all, she was just inept and completely out of touch

the foundation wasnt the problem and closing it would have looked like an admission that it was

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 08:51

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

i mean, she took millions in cash, personally, from banks, for extremely short and meaningless speaking engagements. oh, and in those otherwise meaningless engagements she managed to make damning statements about her eagerness to lie to the american public

her charity was not the loving problem

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 08:53

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Jeb! Repetition posted:

The one disagreement I have with Joementum is he thinks we can't reform campaign finance because it would mean unions wouldn't be able to donate either. But all the other interests donate more than unions already so they would be losing less, not to mention it would free up money that unions are forced to spend on campaigns basically just to exist so they could do more for their members and take the message directly to the public.

lol. real campaign finance reform would be a huge boon for unions. they have people power--GOTV, rallies, direct political influence in gov't by way of public unions, etc. if the money is gone these strengths are comparatively much greater.

say it aint so, joe.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 01:34

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

FuzzySkinner posted:

Re: The topic at hand.

I was trying to figure out something last night as I had spoke about how horrible Sam Bee was.

She had some sort of point about mocking the fact that Bernie was having trouble "connecting" with african americans, and used a clip of him talking about how "We need to tax billionaires more, and use the money to invest in african americans, minorities, get them off the street and give them economic opportunities."

Bee then used this as an opportunity to lecture Bernie about how he sounded like Bill Cosby/Various conservatives did in regards to "BLACK PEOPLE PULLING UP THEIR PANTS!" sort of thing, and then implied that such a goal "doesn't solve racism".

I think that about sums up the HRC/Woke wing of the party quite well though. Racism, Sexism and what have you are not things that can be "defeated". You can only really marginalize, diminish their effects via anti-discrimination laws, criminal justice reform, increased economic opportunity and funding education better.

But these are things that the HRC/Woke wing seem to have very little interest in actually doing. They just seem to enjoy using it as an excuse to move away from actual discussion of such issues. Then finger wag at nearly everyone (including minorities) that don't fit within their mindset right or left.

"free access to public colleges will KILL HBCUs" was one of my fav talking points.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 07:42

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Terror Sweat posted:

Grocery stores are a scam. Go to a farmers market and pay a pittance as the farmers desperately try to sell off their stock

Farmer's markets generally have higher prices than grocery stores now unless you live out in the country somewhere.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 00:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:43

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Godzilla07 posted:

If Hillary had won, we would have had Secretary of Labor Brought To You By Starbucks instead of Secretary of Labor Sponsored By Carl's Jr.

the Carl's Jr guy got axed and his replacement still hasnt been confirmed, lmao

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 01:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?