Study: Clinton ran least substantive ad campaign in recent history

[RI]

http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/2016-election-study-published/

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

[Bismarck]

Interesting how the out of power party always runs more issue based campaigns.

[CMB222]

Wow, that is a lot of personal ads

[Pericles]

If voters cared about policy she would have run more policy ads. But that is still embarrassing for supposed 'policy wonk' Hillary Clinton.

[RINO Tom]

This isn't exactly surprising.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Well, it was what her most extreme base wanted. They still want Democrats to obstruct Trump rather than his policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/politics/activists-urge-democrats-to-step-up-resistance-to-gorsuch-nomination.html?ref=politics

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for Trump!

[Pandaguineapig]

I think the "mirror" is a great study for where the Clinton campaign went wrong. An overly gendered attack on Trump that doesn't give any reasons to support Clinton and only appeals to those who would already strongly support her

[ProgressiveCanadian]

This is what progressives were worried about the entire campaign. No wonder people despise her more than Trump right now.

[DPKdebator]

Hillary 2016 was very forgettable in terms of policies, which is a terrible trait to have in a very polarized issues-based campaign. All I can recall about her policy up front is that it was progressive, she supported amnesty and affirmative action, and she hated Russia.

[Beet]

While I disagreed with the Clinton strategy, it did have a certain logic. Essentially, Clinton assumed (or hoped) for an electorate that, while it might disagree on policy, agreed on matters of qualifications for office, and basic human decency. For instance, you might think the tax rate should be 25% instead of 35%, but if the candidate favoring a 25% tax rate is talking about shooting people on Fifth Avenue, or belittling random people, you will vote for the 35% tax rate guy. It's a question of what's more important in society: policy, or the respect that binds society together? When you put it that way, it should be a no brainer. Government policy has swung back and forth, but without respect for one another social behavior has no foundation to begin with.

[Chinggis]

While I disagreed with the Clinton strategy, it did have a certain logic. Essentially, Clinton assumed (or hoped) for an electorate that, while it might disagree on policy, agreed on matters of qualifications for office, and basic human decency. For instance, you might think the tax rate should be 25% instead of 35%, but if the candidate favoring a 25% tax rate is talking about shooting people on Fifth Avenue, or belittling random people, you will vote for the 35% tax rate guy. It's a question of what's more important in society: policy, or the respect that binds society together? When you put it that way, it should be a no brainer. Government policy has swung back and forth, but without respect for one another social behavior has no foundation to begin with.

In hindsight, their theory that people would vote for a candidate they didn't like or trust- regardless of her issue positions- because her opponent said mean things about people was kinda misguided. That strategy might work in a year like 1996, but in 2016, most Americans were pissed off and even many Democrats saw Clinton as part of the problem.

I think she was lazy with an entitlement attitude, and I'm also pretty sure she blames her defeat on working-class Americans' ignorance or deplore-ability, instead of her campaign's own faults. I could be totally wrong, but that just strikes me as the kind of person Hillary is (vice Bill, who at least seems to understand where the Democrats' messaging went so wrong).

[uti2]

While I disagreed with the Clinton strategy, it did have a certain logic. Essentially, Clinton assumed (or hoped) for an electorate that, while it might disagree on policy, agreed on matters of qualifications for office, and basic human decency. For instance, you might think the tax rate should be 25% instead of 35%, but if the candidate favoring a 25% tax rate is talking about shooting people on Fifth Avenue, or belittling random people, you will vote for the 35% tax rate guy. It's a question of what's more important in society: policy, or the respect that binds society together? When you put it that way, it should be a no brainer. Government policy has swung back and forth, but without respect for one another social behavior has no foundation to begin with.

In hindsight, their theory that people would vote for a candidate they didn't like or trust- regardless of her issue positions- because her opponent said mean things about people was kinda misguided. That strategy might work in a year like 1996, but in 2016, most Americans were pissed off and even many Democrats saw Clinton as part of the problem.

I think she was lazy with an entitlement attitude, and I'm also pretty sure she blames her defeat on working-class Americans' ignorance or deplore-ability, instead of her campaign's own faults. I could be totally wrong, but that just strikes me as the kind of person Hillary is (vice Bill, who at least seems to understand where the Democrats' messaging went so wrong).

Her strategy was to court republicans and ignore the left-wing base, it's somewhat ironic since the original Clinton campaign strategy for 2016 was to drive base turnout. Instead, due to Trump, she shifted her strategy.

She also knowingly damaged the Democratic downballot with this plan:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

[Mr. Smith]

While I disagreed with the Clinton strategy, it did have a certain logic. Essentially, Clinton assumed (or hoped) for an electorate that, while it might disagree on policy, agreed on matters of qualifications for office, and basic human decency. For instance, you might think the tax rate should be 25% instead of 35%, but if the candidate favoring a 25% tax rate is talking about shooting people on Fifth Avenue, or belittling random people, you will vote for the 35% tax rate guy. It's a question of what's more important in society: policy, or the respect that binds society together? When you put it that way, it should be a no brainer. Government policy has swung back and forth, but without respect for one another social behavior has no foundation to begin with.

In hindsight, their theory that people would vote for a candidate they didn't like or trust- regardless of her issue positions- because her opponent said mean things about people was kinda misguided. That strategy might work in a year like 1996, but in 2016, most Americans were pissed off and even many Democrats saw Clinton as part of the problem.

I think she was lazy with an entitlement attitude, and I'm also pretty sure she blames her defeat on working-class Americans' ignorance or deplore-ability, instead of her campaign's own faults. I could be totally wrong, but that just strikes me as the kind of person Hillary is (vice Bill, who at least seems to understand where the Democrats' messaging went so wrong).

Her strategy was to court republicans and ignore the left-wing base, it's somewhat ironic since the original Clinton campaign strategy for 2016 was to drive base turnout. Instead, due to Trump, she shifted her strategy.

She also knowingly damaged the Democratic downballot with this plan:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

So basically Trump created a Springtime for Hitler effect, same intention vs result dissonance.

And this is also why no other Republican would've won, even with Hillary's baggage.

[Sumner 1868]

Obviously she spent too much time on policy and should have made all of her ads about Drumpf's personality. Especially in swing state Texas!

[uti2]

While I disagreed with the Clinton strategy, it did have a certain logic. Essentially, Clinton assumed (or hoped) for an electorate that, while it might disagree on policy, agreed on matters of qualifications for office, and basic human decency. For instance, you might think the tax rate should be 25% instead of 35%, but if the candidate favoring a 25% tax rate is talking about shooting people on Fifth Avenue, or belittling random people, you will vote for the 35% tax rate guy. It's a question of what's more important in society: policy, or the respect that binds society together? When you put it that way, it should be a no brainer. Government policy has swung back and forth, but without respect for one another social behavior has no foundation to begin with.

In hindsight, their theory that people would vote for a candidate they didn't like or trust- regardless of her issue positions- because her opponent said mean things about people was kinda misguided. That strategy might work in a year like 1996, but in 2016, most Americans were pissed off and even many Democrats saw Clinton as part of the problem.

I think she was lazy with an entitlement attitude, and I'm also pretty sure she blames her defeat on working-class Americans' ignorance or deplore-ability, instead of her campaign's own faults. I could be totally wrong, but that just strikes me as the kind of person Hillary is (vice Bill, who at least seems to understand where the Democrats' messaging went so wrong).

Her strategy was to court republicans and ignore the left-wing base, it's somewhat ironic since the original Clinton campaign strategy for 2016 was to drive base turnout. Instead, due to Trump, she shifted her strategy.

She also knowingly damaged the Democratic downballot with this plan:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

So basically Trump created a Springtime for Hitler effect, same intention vs result dissonance.

And this is also why no other Republican would've won, even with Hillary's baggage.

You can look at this article for instance in how Clinton dramatically changed her campaign approach with regards to Michigan, as an example, due to Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No surprise. Despite all the HillaryBots talking about how great her policies are, we never actually talked about her policies. Maybe because policies like having a backdoor in all encryption, having a no fly zone where Russian planes are flying, and deporting child refugees to send a message because they were treated poorly (does she know what a refugee is?) are rather indefensible.

[MT Treasurer]

Her strategy was to destroy Trump and make him unacceptable to the electorate (another Akin, if you will). The ads she ran were devastating Lee Atwater-style attack ads and she outspent him like 15 to 1. It still didn't work, which is pretty hilarious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Her strategy was to destroy Trump and make him unacceptable to the electorate (another Akin, if you will). The ads she ran were devastating Lee Atwater-style attack ads and she outspent him like 15 to 1. It still didn't work, which is pretty hilarious.

David Brock was her Lee Atwater, minus the successful part.

[krazen1211]

She was also the dumbest and laziest candidate in recent history, so this makes sense.

[Mr. Smith]

Her strategy was to destroy Trump and make him unacceptable to the electorate (another Akin, if you will). The ads she ran were devastating Lee Atwater-style attack ads and she outspent him like 15 to 1. It still didn't work, which is pretty hilarious.

Trump was no Dukakis. Simple as that.