• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama suggests Clinton didn't work as hard as he did

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SolidSnakex

Member
NYTimes actually did an article about her August schedule where she seemingly vanished from public eye so she could hang out and raise money with the rich

At a private fund-raiser Tuesday night at a waterfront Hamptons estate, Hillary Clinton danced alongside Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi and Paul McCartney, and joined in a singalong finale to “Hey Jude.”

“I stand between you and the apocalypse,” a confident Mrs. Clinton declared to laughs, exhibiting a flash of self-awareness and humor to a crowd that included Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein and for whom the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency is dire.

Mr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

If Mr. Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in. Last week, for example, she diverged just once from her packed fund-raising schedule to deliver a speech.
Click to expand...

Mr. Berger, who joined Mrs. Clinton last month at a donor event in Miami Beach, said many of the individual conversations before and after she speaks at the gatherings are centered more on grandchildren than weighty policy matters. But when she has had a give-and-take this summer about issues, Mrs. Clinton, who has promised to “reshuffle the deck” in favor of the middle class and portrayed Mr. Trump as an out-of-touch billionaire, has almost exclusively been fielding the concerns of the wealthiest Americans.
Click to expand...

Another advantage to choosing private fund-raisers over town halls or other public events is that Mrs. Clinton can bask in an affectionate embrace as hosts try to limit confrontational engagements.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
The suggestion that Obama -- he the master of 13th-dimensional chess, recent prognosticator and font of Presidential wisdom to Trump that he should watch every word he says because it can move markets and piss off every single person -- would have this observation and not be making a direct comparison to Hillary's fuckups is hopelessly naive.

Sure he has a larger point (Dems need a stronger working class argument, I guess?), but get real. Of course this is shade.
 
C

Chariot

Member
TheSchwab_7 said:
Geez it's like she only campaigned in New York most of the time. Terrible strategy. Have to admit that Trump was putting in the work...and it paid off.
Click to expand...
That wasn't strategy, she was just greediliy grabbing more money in fundraisers, because she thought she had it in the bag like her hot sauce. Despite Bill, Barack and Bernie warning her about that. Not to mention her flying back home every day. Trump at least went to close businesses of his to stay on the trail longer.

As you said. He worked hard and showed his face. Hillary didn't respect them enough to even say hi or mention their existence, why would they go with her? Trump cut right, when he called the the "forgotten". That's how they felt.
 
E

ElBoxyBrown

Banned
daviyoung said:
Did Trump do that though? Did he spend days going to small towns and country fairs to drum up support? If not, why are the Democrats blamed for not trying harder when it means pushing a boulder up a cliff? Does the country just sway to the right by default?
Click to expand...
Rural Republican Americans outnumber Democratic Americans. Clinton failed to appeal to rural Americans and almost half American voters who didn't vote to vote for her. Basically she left all of Rural America to decide for us.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
TheSchwab_7 said:
Geez it's like she only campaigned in New York most of the time. Terrible strategy. Have to admit that Trump was putting in the work...and it paid off.
Click to expand...

Trump was not putting in the work. Or rather, if he did, it wasn't paying off. He got even less votes than Mitt Romney.

This wasn't a Trump victory so much as it was a Hillary loss. Her campaign completely fell asleep at the wheel with the rust belt states which resulted in a series of narrow losses that ultimately cost her the election.
 
C

CrispyBoar

Banned
She has failed to convince a lot of people on why they should vote for her, including rural democratic americans & non-urban voters & had even ignored some states completely.

Those are some of the reasons why 47% of eligible voters didn't vote at all (& most of them are probably Democrats) & why Democratic states such as Wisconsin, etc. all went for Trump instead.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
She worked hard. She worked harder than any MALE ever. The problem was she did all that before the election even began.

I will never understand this need from his camp to flip states that weren't needed. This attitude of complacency was really the undoing of her.
 
A

Averon

Member
Like Obama said, even if she and her team knew she could not win a blood red county, going there and campaigning means losing that county by 60-40, not 75-25.

That doesn't sound like much, but those add up. That is the difference between winning or losing MI, WI, and PA by a couple thousand votes.
 
E

exmachina64

Banned
99Luffy said:
Is it possible that she didnt make many stops because she was afraid no one would show up at her rallies?
Click to expand...

It's complicated. For some reason, Hillary (and Trump) felt the need to travel back to one of her homes every day, so that ate a lot of hours. It might have been better for her physical and emotional health, but those are hours wasted that can be spent traveling by plane or bus to the next location. She also met with her policy team each day.

If you look at the broader schedule that includes surrogates such Bill, Tim Kaine and both Obamas, they did a decent job of covering key areas. To a degree, we just have to accept that there are potentially more key locations for a candidate to hit than there is time to go to them.
 
N

numble

Member
Balphon said:
He (at least seems to be) talking about the 2008 Iowa caucus, which he spent about 87 days campaigning in. His victory there was an upset.

https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2008/ia08/iavobama.html

I'm not sure why everyone is assuming he's comparing his GE results to Clinton's.
Click to expand...

No, he is talking about it in the context of the Democrats needing to deliver their message. It doesn't make sense that he is talking about a Democratic caucus composed only of Democrats.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
Hillary worked as hard as she could and spent at least a month near the tail end of the campaign battling illness.

I guess she could have gotten an edge by actually sleeping near the area she was campaigning each night because traveling to and from NY each night and morning does waste valuable campaign time in the air. Trump did it too, but that could have been one thing for Hillary to do that would have given her an advantage.
 
davepoobond

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
has anyone made a comparison to previous campaigns? is trump higher than usual and is clinton lower than usual?


really gotta know the disparity to make an educated argument here
 
Alex

Alex

Member
Chaos2Frozen said:
To be fair, who knew Americans had to be coddled into not voting for the least qualified candidate and throwing their country into chaos and making racism/sexism acceptable

I sure as hell didn't
Click to expand...

I envy that viewpoint, I live in a red county in Eastern WA so I sure as shit expected plenty of that.
 
N

numble

Member
EatinOlives said:
Trump was not putting in the work. Or rather, if he did, it wasn't paying off. He got even less votes than Mitt Romney.

This wasn't a Trump victory so much as it was a Hillary loss. Her campaign completely fell asleep at the wheel with the rust belt states which resulted in a series of narrow losses that ultimately cost her the election.
Click to expand...

That narrative is wrong, at least for the swing states.

McCain Florida votes: 4,046,219
Romney Florida votes: 4,163,447
Trump Florida votes: 4,615,910 (He would have beaten Obama here, who got 4,282,367 votes in 2008 and 4,237,756 votes in 2012)

McCain Pennsylvania votes: 2,655,885
Romney Pennsylvania votes: 2,680,434
Trump Pennsylvania votes: 2,912,941

McCain Ohio votes: 2,677,820
Romney Ohio votes: 2,661,407
Trump Ohio votes: 2,771,984

McCain Michigan votes: 2,048,639
Romney Michigan votes: 2,115,256
Trump Michigan votes: 2,277,914

McCain North Carolina votes: 2,128,474
Romney North Carolina votes: 2,270,395
Trump North Carolina votes: 2,339,830

McCain Virginia votes: 1,725,005
Romney Virginia votes: 1,822,522
Trump Virginia votes: 1,765,518

McCain Iowa votes: 682,379
Romney Iowa votes: 730,617
Trump Iowa votes: 796,350

McCain Wisconsin votes: 1,262,393
Romney Wisconsin votes: 1,407,966
Trump Wisconsin votes: 1,409,467

McCain New Hampshire votes: 316,534
Romney New Hampshire votes: 329,918
Trump New Hampshire votes: 345,598

Keep in mind that votes are still being counted.

The narrative that Trump did worse than McCain and Romney appears to be false for the swing states, which was a narrative that began before all the 2016 votes were counted.
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
CxQzQcaXAAAw9YK.jpg



"...but why don't you come around and see me, Hillary?" - Rural, White, Christian America.
 
F

funkystudent

Member
He is not wrong.

Its painfully obvious now Hillary didnt campaign in the battleground states the way she should have and ultimately that cost her.

I think if she put in the work I still think it would have been a close call but I think it would have helped her a lot.




Its a harsh lesson but one hopefully future campaigns will learn from. NEVER take votes for granted. Never completely trust the polls.
 
L

Log4Girlz

Member
funkystudent said:
He is not wrong.

Its painfully obvious now Hillary didnt campaign in the battleground states the way she should have and ultimately that cost her.

I think if she put in the work I still think it would have been a close call but I think it would have helped her a lot.




Its a harsh lesson but one hopefully future campaigns will learn from. NEVER take votes for granted. Never completely trust the polls.
Click to expand...

Never insult any part of the electorate, never take votes for granted. Take everyone, all voters, all challengers, seriously. He was a cartoon buffoon and clearly could never win. Sad! Oh about that...
 
W

watershed

Banned
It's already started but the in-depth post-ops on the Clinton campaign are going to be amazing. There is a lot to be unearthed and considered.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
numble said:
That narrative is wrong, at least for the swing states.

McCain Florida votes: 4,046,219
Romney Florida votes: 4,163,447
Trump Florida votes: 4,615,910 (He would have beaten Obama here, who got 4,282,367 votes in 2008 and 4,237,756 votes in 2012)

McCain Pennsylvania votes: 2,655,885
Romney Pennsylvania votes: 2,680,434
Trump Pennsylvania votes: 2,912,941

McCain Ohio votes: 2,677,820
Romney Ohio votes: 2,661,407
Trump Ohio votes: 2,771,984

McCain Michigan votes: 2,048,639
Romney Michigan votes: 2,115,256
Trump Michigan votes: 2,277,914

McCain North Carolina votes: 2,128,474
Romney North Carolina votes: 2,270,395
Trump North Carolina votes: 2,339,830

McCain Virginia votes: 1,725,005
Romney Virginia votes: 1,822,522
Trump Virginia votes: 1,765,518

McCain Iowa votes: 682,379
Romney Iowa votes: 730,617
Trump Iowa votes: 796,350

McCain Wisconsin votes: 1,262,393
Romney Wisconsin votes: 1,407,966
Trump Wisconsin votes: 1,409,467

McCain New Hampshire votes: 316,534
Romney New Hampshire votes: 329,918
Trump New Hampshire votes: 345,598

Keep in mind that votes are still being counted.

The narrative that Trump did worse than McCain and Romney appears to be false for the swing states, which was a narrative that began before all the 2016 votes were counted.
Click to expand...

These are pretty narrow gains, which doesn't really refute my point.

My argument was not contingent on whether or not he got more votes than Romney in every state. "Greater or less than Romney" is not my litmus test as to whether or not Trump did well. That particularly point about total popular vote is looking at that statistic for a bird's eye view. I then talk about the individual states which helped Trump through a series of narrow victories. The stats you posted are largely small gains up from Romney, which was enough to get him elected because Hillary did really that bad in those states. My point stands.
 
C

Chariot

Member
EatinOlives said:
Trump was not putting in the work. Or rather, if he did, it wasn't paying off. He got even less votes than Mitt Romney.

This wasn't a Trump victory so much as it was a Hillary loss. Her campaign completely fell asleep at the wheel with the rust belt states which resulted in a series of narrow losses that ultimately cost her the election.
Click to expand...
Even if he had less numbers, they are not down by much. Remember that he was against high odds. He was not a republican, in fact he insulted a lot of them, he got few and half-hearted endorsements and he was - you know - fucking insane. And yet he almost matched the reps of olden. What he lost in traditional republicans, he made good in anti-establishment voters and abandoned democrats.

He put in the work and it absolutely payed of. Given the small edge, his diligence was part of making him president.
 
A

Azih

Member
It's possible her team's data was telling them the more the American people saw her the less they liked her and so she felt it was a better play to be as invisible as possible.
 
B

bachikarn

Member
Amikami said:
Undoubtedly, there was a lot of external shit against Hillary, but she certainly got overconfident as well. Hillary and her staff should be able to admit this.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of it is over confidence, and how much of it is just her not liking campaigning. I get it. Campaigning can suck, and I doubt there is a strong correlation between how well you campaign and how good at the job you are.

I personally think it is stupid that so many of these jobs are more determined by how well you campaign and not how good at the job you are, but that is the system we have and Clinton should have sucked it up and done it. Especially if she believed all the shit she said about Trump.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
EatinOlives said:
Trump was not putting in the work. Or rather, if he did, it wasn't paying off. He got even less votes than Mitt Romney.

This wasn't a Trump victory so much as it was a Hillary loss. Her campaign completely fell asleep at the wheel with the rust belt states which resulted in a series of narrow losses that ultimately cost her the election.
Click to expand...

Trump being a twitter troll absolutely tapped the youngish dude demographic that I cannot imagine cast a single vote for their dusty old grandma. Think about it.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
Chariot said:
Even if he had less numbers, they are not down by much. Remember that he was against high odds. He was not a republican, in fact he insulted a lot of them, he got few and half-hearted endorsements and he was - you know - fucking insane. And yet he almost matched the reps of olden. What he lost in traditional republicans, he made good in anti-establishment voters and abandoned democrats.

He put in the work and it absolutely payed of. Given the small edge, his diligence was part of making him president.
Click to expand...

What started to throw Fivethirtyeight's certainty off was the fact that large swaths of "undecided" voters eventually went to pledging a vote for Trump. They weren't particularly new votes either, they were simply disenchanted conservative voters who needed more time to rally behind the GOP candidate because he was the GOP candidate.

I would buy the argument that "he put in the work and reaped the rewards" if he was laser-focused on the rust-belt states, as opposed to marginally more involved than Hillary's "not at all" level of involvement.

catfish said:
Trump being a twitter troll absolutely tapped the youngish dude demographic that I cannot imagine cast a single vote for their dusty old grandma. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Which didn't really move the needle where it mattered (the narrow rust belt wins).
 
A

Averon

Member
bachikarn said:
I wonder how much of it is over confidence, and how much of it is just her not liking campaigning. I get it. Campaigning can suck, and I doubt there is a strong correlation between how well you campaign and how good at the job you are.

I personally think it is stupid that so many of these jobs are more determined by how well you campaign and not how good at the job you are, but that is the system we have and Clinton should have sucked it up and done it. Especially if she believed all the shit she said about Trump.
Click to expand...

Campaigning is part of being president. You think campaigning stops after getting into the WH? If Hilary would have won, she'd have a hostile congress to work with. Anything she'd want to get passed would have required her to go out on the trail and campaign against the GOP's obstruction or whatever horrendous shit they want to pass. In 2018, she would have had to go out and campaign for Democrats all around the country as leader of the party.

Campaigning would have been an unavoidable aspect of her life. If campaigning bothered her, she should have never ran for president.
 
N

numble

Member
EatinOlives said:
These are pretty narrow gains, which doesn't really refute my point.

My argument was not contingent on whether or not he got more votes than Romney in every state. "Greater or less than Romney" is not my litmus test as to whether or not Trump did well. That particularly point about total popular vote is looking at that statistic for a bird's eye view. I then talk about the individual states which helped Trump through a series of narrow victories. The stats you posted are largely small gains up from Romney, which was enough to get him elected because Hillary did really that bad in those states. My point stands.
Click to expand...

You said he got fewer votes than Romney. It doesn't look to be the case. Now you say they are narrow gains.

Florida is an 11% gain. He got half a million more votes! He would have beat Obama!
Pennsylvania is a 9% gain.
Michigan is a 8% gain.
Iowa is a 9% gain.

Even if you look at the nationwide popular vote, its looking like he will match Romney's total.
 
C

Chariot

Member
Azih said:
It's possible her team's data was telling them the more the American people saw her the less they liked her and so she felt it was a better play to be as invisible as possible.
Click to expand...
No, her team thought she should stay in urban areas and actively abandon the countryside. They said they would take two new voters for every old one they lost in rursl areas. Bill warned them.

And all that fancy New York partying was just bull by all means.

catfish said:
Trump being a twitter troll absolutely tapped the youngish dude demographic that I cannot imagine cast a single vote for their dusty old grandma. Think about it.
Click to expand...
A lot of people gladly embraced grandpa Bernie. Hillary was just not that charismatic. Her awful attempts at reaching youth didn't help either.

Emojis. Pokemon Go to the polls. Abuela. Snapchat.
 
T

TheSecondSpitter

Member
EatinOlives said:
These are pretty narrow gains, which doesn't really refute my point.

My argument was not contingent on whether or not he got more votes than Romney in every state. "Greater or less than Romney" is not my litmus test as to whether or not Trump did well. That particularly point about total popular vote is looking at that statistic for a bird's eye view. I then talk about the individual states which helped Trump through a series of narrow victories. The stats you posted are largely small gains up from Romney, which was enough to get him elected because Hillary did really that bad in those states. My point stands.
Click to expand...

500,000 and still counting in Florida is not "narrow gains", considering in a previous election there were 537 votes separating the two candidates.

There was also less turnout in this election.

No, your "point" is a dog's breakfast.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
numble said:
You said he got fewer votes than Romney. It doesn't look to be the case. Now you say they are narrow gains.

Florida is an 11% gain. He got half a million more votes! He would have beat Obama!
Pennsylvania is a 9% gain.
Michigan is a 8% gain.
Iowa is a 9% gain.

Even if you look at the nationwide popular vote, its looking like he will match Romney's total.
Click to expand...

Again, my point is not contingent on whether or not he beats Romney. My point is, for all intents and purposes Romney was considered an anemic candidate who nobody found exciting, and Trump is considered one who "fired up the people", yet the numbers simply don't back that up.

Florida is most definitely Trump's biggest win, and I would never argue that he didn't win big in that state. Clinton got destroyed in FL. I'd buy these arguments of "Trump totally galvanized new voters" if he won like he did in FL. But he didn't, so I don't.

The Second Spitter said:
500,000 and still counting in Florida is not "narrow gains", considering in a previous election there were 537 votes separating the two candidates.
Click to expand...

You're right, FL was not a narrow win by any metric. I should've singled that state out specifically in my previous post.
 
N

numble

Member
EatinOlives said:
Again, my point is not contingent on whether or not he beats Romney. My point is, for all intents and purposes Romney was considered an anemic candidate who nobody found exciting, and Trump is considered one who "fired up the people", yet the numbers simply don't back that up.

Florida is most definitely Trump's biggest win, and I would never argue that he didn't win big in that state. Clinton got destroyed in FL. I'd buy these arguments of "Trump totally galvanized new voters" if he won like he did in FL. But he didn't, so I don't.



You're right, FL was not a narrow win by any metric. I should've singled that state out specifically in my previous post.
Click to expand...

Your point was:
Trump was not putting in the work. Or rather, if he did, it wasn't paying off. He got even less votes than Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
If your point that he got even less votes than Mitt Romney is not contingent on whether or not he beats Romney, then what is it contingent on?
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
I mean, who give a shit about Maine, right, but he closed the gap there as well. Like, man, America is trending towards fuckery again in a big way.
 
H

Henchmen21

Banned
Chariot said:
No, her team thought she should stay in urban areas and actively abandon the countryside. They said they would take two new voters for every old one they lost in rursl areas. Bill warned them.

And all that fancy New York partying was just bull by all means.

A lot of people gladly embraced grandpa Bernie. Hillary was just not that charismatic. Her awful attempts at reaching youth didn't help either.

Emojis. Pokemon Go to the polls. Abuela. Snapchat.
Click to expand...

You forgot "Chillin' in Cedar Rapids"
 
Meicyn

Meicyn

Gold Member
Reminds me of that leaked email from Colin Powell months ago.

"Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris,” Powell wrote in an email to private equity investor Jeffrey Leeds.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
numble said:
Your point was:

If your point that he got even less votes than Mitt Romney is not contingent on whether or not he beats Romney, then what is it contingent on?
Click to expand...

Like I already said, the victory margins over Clinton in states where it mattered.

My statement on Romney was to bring context into the numbers, but that itself was not the sole point. You can read it as "not EVEN higher than Romney" if it makes it all the clearer for you.
 
I

ISOM

Member
Sinfamy said:
You can partly blame the media for that, who did the same thing as many here on GAF did, tell everyone that she had a 98.2% chance of winning, laugh at everyone saying that Trump had a real chance, that she had it in the bag, and that it was time to prepare the fireworks and measure the drapes.
Why would people rush to the polls if you hear left and right that she's going to landslide Trump.
You need to create urgency, and to have a good get out to vote strategy, something this campaign didn't even bother with.

And Obama has his share of the blame in this too, he constantly pushed for TPP when the rust belt who hated it had someone like Trump come and promise them he'll block it and bring back their jobs.
Click to expand...

Nah, what you just described is regular politics that happens every other presidential campaign. The difference is that this election had one candidate say some of the of the most racist, sexist, bigoted things about ethnic groups that any presidential candidate has ever said. He's said fascist rhetoric, incited violence, threatened to go after political opponenets among other things. He by his own words showed that he was constantly unqualified for the position but people ignored that and STILL voted for him. Even He's surprised that he won. I rest blame squarely on his voters. Never have I felt more like the US was a third world country where dictators rise to power than the day Trump was elected.
 
A

Abounder

Banned
Meicyn said:
Reminds me of that leaked email from Colin Powell months ago.

"Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris,” Powell wrote in an email to private equity investor Jeffrey Leeds.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Hillary is a dipshit and like Podesta/Sanders said: possesses poor instincts and terrible judgment. Hillary gave away the presidency and threw away the party by acting like Marie Antoinette, yeesh. Calling voters deplorable and not even showing up...smh @ the optics
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
2 in 10 Clinton Primary Voters Weren't Going To Vote For Obama (2008 Flashback)
16
3K
ModBot replied
Michelle Obama: Women who didn't vote for Clinton “voted against their own voice”
2 3 4 5 6
250
27K
gutter_trash replied
Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
1K
Soodanim replied
  • Locked
Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides at Harvard forum
2
74
12K
ultratruman replied
  • Locked
How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election. Interesting read.
3 4 5 6 7
318
26K
MIMIC replied
Top Bottom