Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(56,286 posts)
19. I read that article
Thu Dec 1, 2016, 12:31 AM
Dec 2016

1) I don't think she did everything she needed to. 2) I think it general she ran a good campaign but in retrospect I think the messaging could have been better honed and directed.

Now, that article. It shows little understanding of how voter turnout operations work. It's clear the author has never worked for or volunteered for a campaign. It's not true that they didn't focus on Democrats until two weeks before the election. They were in my state of MN--not a swing state--in the summer registering voters and recruiting volunteers. I myself worked on voter registration in 100 degree heat at a street fair. They did try to win over Republicans and swing voters because there was polling to indicate Trump's support was soft with them. But a key point of the author's claim that is false is that two weeks before an election is too late. How is it too late?
The point of the ground game is to turn out voters, not persuasion. Research indicates that personal contact from a volunteer in the THREE DAYS before the election is the most effective way to get people to vote.

Then the author says the campaign was incompetent because 5-25% of contacts were Trump supporters. Identifying supporters is key to getting them to the polls. If there is no party registration in a state, you can't know (aside from market data indications and voting history)how they are thinking about the election until they tell you. And even if there is party registration, people do cross party lines. Part of a ground game is to gather than information. When someone indicates they are not a Clinton supporter, the volunteer marks that and they are then removed from the list. If respondents are undecided, they will continue to be contacted.

Now I will ask you if you volunteered for the campaign? A ground game depends on volunteers. If you didn't, you really ought not be pointing fingers.


MY OP, however, is not a general assessment of why Clinton lost but an observation about the continued repetition of propaganda generated by the GOP to tarnish Clinton and help their own party. People should think about their role in that. Also the entire concern about "corporatist" Dems is made moot from this election. How people can imagine that's a problem when faced with what Trump is doing is bizarre.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If only we had trusted Clinton instead of looking at her history. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #1
I suppose next time we should pick the candidate that lost the primary? And disenfranchise millions? bravenak Dec 2016 #2
Exactly! BainsBane Dec 2016 #6
I looked at her history BainsBane Dec 2016 #3
Well I care what happens to America - thats why I supported another candidate in the primary el_bryanto Dec 2016 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author CountAllVotes Dec 2016 #29
I don't care who you voted for in the primary BainsBane Dec 2016 #34
This!!! DemonGoddess Dec 2016 #39
the pres-elect CountAllVotes Dec 2016 #4
I voted for Hillary in the general election. So who exactly are you calling an idiot? nt el_bryanto Dec 2016 #13
Calling tRump supporters idiots CountAllVotes Dec 2016 #30
For most of his hayseed followers jambo101 Dec 2016 #21
Exactly! CountAllVotes Dec 2016 #28
Right, her voting record. The one that puts here squarely on the liberal side of Congress. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #7
Yep that's the one - She is a liberal; just not as liberal I would prefer, on a number of issues. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #14
That you even think that relevant now BainsBane Dec 2016 #35
well you cared enough to reply. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #36
if only we had believed Clint Eastwood and Empty Chair strawman Obama emulatorloo Dec 2016 #9
Well it seemed that people weren't interested in Russ Feingold's record or Cypher, Teachout, or still_one Dec 2016 #26
Trump is the *ultimate* elitist and the *ultimate* corporatist. He's a fricking BRAND, for heaven's TwilightZone Dec 2016 #5
But those Goldman Execs are being appointed BainsBane Dec 2016 #8
I think some of them just bought their own BS TwilightZone Dec 2016 #16
weapon-grade stupidity is right BainsBane Dec 2016 #20
You got played too if you think Hillary did everything she needed to do to win BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #11
I read that article BainsBane Dec 2016 #19
Sam Stein wrote a pretty definitive autopsy, if that one doesn't work for you BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #23
You might not have called her a corporatist. But a whole lot of people did. Constantly. kcr Dec 2016 #33
It was a silent coup, right before our eyes, with Russian help and assists from the FBI and Assange brush Dec 2016 #12
Yes it was nt Tumbulu Dec 2016 #25
This world wide wally Dec 2016 #27
It was a con by someone screaming from the rooftops with a megaphone Lucky Luciano Dec 2016 #15
Some people have to be in pain in order to learn. Yavin4 Dec 2016 #17
Sorry, think MUCH LONGER because the billionaires will never let us have flamingdem Dec 2016 #18
they are drunk on hate KT2000 Dec 2016 #22
addicted jambo101 Dec 2016 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #24
Yeah, it's a billionaire lollapalooza now. A veritable billionaire shindig. R B Garr Dec 2016 #32
Most of people... JSup Dec 2016 #37
Many Will Soon Enough colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #38
+1000000 triron Dec 2016 #40
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»It's clear people have no...»Reply #19