Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-recode.html
…
5 Likes
“The 2016 U.S. presidential election popular vote winner…” Hillary Clinton
I love it!
11 Likes
I’m going with: covfefe was, until a day or so ago, Trump’s twitter password.
11 Likes
Dukakis-88 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, uncool in a tank, people believed he didn’t love his wife.
Bush Sr-92 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, didn’t know the price of milk, wimpy, and had an idiot sidekick while old.
Dole- 94 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, and had an idiot sidekick while old.
Gore-00 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, invented the internet, nobody wanted to have a beer with him and folks thought he might be a robot (Won the popular vote and likely the electoral college)
Kerry-04 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, voted for things before against them, and people believed that his military record was somehow a fake.
McCain- 08 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof,wanted to bomb Iran while out of tune, and had an idiot sidekick while old.
Romney-12 Lost because he seemed out of touch, aloof, invented the internet, and robot like
Clinton-16 ____________________________________________________________________
Misinformation is as useless as information if people don’t want to believe it.
4 Likes
I don’t feel like she is going to be of any help, or more specifically, she will take the focus off of him…
1 Like
A lot of party insiders, pushed forward because of seniority in said parties, completely out of touch with life of the common voter?
2 Likes
But, even accepting those assertions at face value, is perceived aloofness the cause of losing, or is it just part of being painted as a loser? With the possible exception of Bill Clinton, none of the winners of those elections were much like normal people. Bush II is a privileged trust-fund kid, Turmp lives in a golden toilet, and Obama is routinely criticised as aloof and cerebral (or, in various coded ways, for being black). Any of them could’ve been fit into your list if things had gone the other way.
I agree that the millions who voted for Turmp matter more than thousands who tipped the actual result. But none of them matter as much as the handful who get to frame elections, and their primary agenda (yes, even Murdoch’s) is to ensure that every race is close.
If you took two random people off the street, and asked people to instantly pick their favorite, most of the time you’d see a strong winner. The fact that presidential elections are always close to 50-50 strongly suggests that it’s not decided by a static comparison of what each candidate brings to the table on day one. If you think about it, it really couldn’t be.
12 Likes
I still don’t get what the big deal was with the Goldman Sachs speeches. I thought they were great. She should have put them on her website.
Well you see, business is evil, and therefore a woman who makes a speech to business is evil.
And weighs as much as a duck.
2 Likes
For whatever reason, the link to “interview with Kara Swisher” in the second paragraph is to a URL http://asa%20mathat/ which doesn’t resolve.
(rant on)
Am I the only one who wishes somebody would just freaking transcribe these tweet storms into an actual, coherent post?
I read through this shit and can’t make sense of who’s talking and what the point is they’re trying to make.
Who the fuck is Ruby Cramer and why should I care what she has to tweet on the subject?
(rant off)
8 Likes
“What misjudgement di you make, and your staff”…
Oh, I I dunno. How about stealing the nomination from the most popular politician in the country?
3 Likes
But, even accepting those assertions at face value, is perceived aloofness the cause of losing, or is it just part of being painted as a loser?
Well, I think the answer to that is yes and no. Losing is about failing to connect with enough of the voters in the right places. it’s important and closely linked to your later point
The fact that presidential elections are always close to 50-50
Messages are adjusted and coalitions built to split the electorate. A lot of populist messaging and you lose donors and a lot of “we are on the right track” talk and people hurting head out the back. Everything you do to bring one voter in can push another voter out. So after elections it’s a natural think to acknowledge that you you were too cautious on the bringing voters in the front door by connecting with their interests. Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and lots of other demographic tropes were developed after losses to figure out how to appeal to more people next time. Those other candidates slipped out of the public eye, admitted their failures and their banishment was part of their party adjusting their candidates and their messages. Think about the next candidates in line after most of those losses. They were different and brought adapted messages and
Clinton is being obstructionist over ego in my opinion.
strongly suggests that it’s not decided by a static comparison of what each candidate brings to the table on day one. If you think about it, it really couldn’t be.
Yeah, exactly. The question really isn’t about Clinton losing. It’s about her not winning by 20 points. Donald Trump is the least qualified, least presentable, least intelligent candidates in a century if not ever and he ran a train-wreck of a campaign. I think there is a strong argument that she was too concerned about being careful over relatable and too concerned about donors over appealing to regular people. Russia and Comey certainly were factors but why is it that seemed to have no effect in California while Clinton lost in the the rust belt and midwest?
2 Likes
She should have - it would have made the issue go away, and would have shed light on how she regarded Wall Street. If consistent with other neoliberal positions, she still would have lost.
Meanwhile Trump is campaigning on being tough on Wall Street, while now he’s sucking their dicks. Just like Mr. Russia Puppet saying “No puppet, no puppet - you’re the puppet”.
1 Like
No you are not the only one 
You are certainly not the only one. I can never figure the fuck out who I saying what to whom, either.
Just stopped in to say oof on the Tweet storm format.
1 Like
Right. Anything other than admit that it’s because you’re a corrupt, warmongering plutocrat, who, unlike your competitor, failed to blackmail or con enough people into supporting you to win.
1 Like
Combined with new Democrat neoliberalism, and her only elected seat conviently physically containing literal wall street, it’s maybe not the best candidate to run between housing bubble collapses.
2 Likes
Trump’s pitch:
Good jobs gone? Build a wall, tariffs, threaten employers, jobs come back !!!
Clinton’s pitch:
Good jobs gone? Okay, we’ll extend unemployment benefits, and give you some college tuition so that maybe in ten years you can get a job working for a tech startup. And here’s some expanded Medicaid.
I can easily see why the rust belt bought the Trump pitch even though it’s 97 percent hot air.
1 Like
