Did Hillary Clinton do anything right

[Devout Centrist]

"She's an evil bitch, she's an idiot, I hate her, etc."

[Stranger in a strange land]

Her anti alt-right speech was good. While her fainting on 9/11 was bad, I respect that she came into work even though she was sick and persevered(to excess in this case (, Hillary wouldn't pull a sick day on you.

TBH I don't think it was very effective: most Americans didn't (and still don't) know what the Alt-Right is, and it was a mistake to put so much focus on such a fringe group of his supporters (though the Alt-Right certainly has outsized influence both in terms of their access to Trump and their role in online content creation) not only gave them more exposure, but because it also meant that she couldn't tie Trump to the deeply unpopular Obama-era Republican party, which had even lower favorable ratings than Trump himself. Of course, she was doing this to try to drive a wedge between moderately conservative GOP suburbanites and Trump voters, but when her campaign repeatedly said that Trump wasn't a typical Republican, voters got the message: the problem was that the wrong voters got the wrong message, voting for Trump because they thought he wouldn't implement unpopular typical Republican policies.

All of this made it easier for Trump to run as an outsider, and a lot of voters who didn't agree with Trump on major issues ended up voting for him because they thought he would shake things up or because they liked his rhetoric about draining the swamp.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

She didn't beat the orange baffoon like this forum thought was a for sure thing so...nothing.

[catographer]

Does a losing candidate ever do anything right? I think the answer is always yes, they did some things right but most things wrong.

[moderatevoter]

Am I the only one who thought Hillary got very lucky with Trump's bungled response to Alicia Machado?

I remember seeing Machado was linked to some genuinely sketchy developments--supposedly driving a get-away car in a murder plot and threatening a judge's life. Instead of responding as he did, a more disciplined Trump could've blasted Hillary for elevating her and tied his response back to the immigration issue.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

She did well in the debates -- sort of.

The DNC was very well orchestrated political theater, protesters notwithstanding.

FWIW, data driven field ops aren't the worst idea. I think they went around it really strangely, and the idea of not having a persuasion phase of their field program was simply bonkers, but the truth is that field (WITH an appealing candidate to sell) works.

She also flat-out outmaneuvered Sanders in the primaries. She just ran a better campaign from a technical perspective.

[krazen1211]

Well, I guess she married the right person and coasted on his reputation.

Otherwise, a useless nasty Cockroach like Hillary Clinton would be cleaning toilets for a living and not constantly losing elections.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes. Go after Trump personally to attempt to make him an unacceptable candidate. Arguably, cleverly avoid policy discussion to court moderate Republicans. I mean, look at how Texas swung.

Also, she prepped for the debates.

There were a lot of mistakes also (even at the debates), of course; in fact, a boatload of them. From claiming America was illegals' country to mad Russophobia, to not being outspoken about Her support for popular policies.

Clinton literally lost because 90% of her commercials and adds were personal attacks against Trump & had nothing to do with policy. People want real change and real policy solutions. Clinton never gave the people that. Which was why it was a huge mistake not nominating Bernie.

Statistically, the people found her personal attacks against Trump as major turn-offs. The people wanted policy, and at least Donald was giving vague policy ideas. Clinton's wishy-washy "strategy" was a major mistake. People dont care about the personality. They want POLICY, DIRECTION, & FRESH IDEAS. Clinton couldnt offer any of that. In her hunt for republicans, whom she didnt even come close to winning, she turned off her key voter groups, which are arguably FAR more important to win over than GOP voters. For Dems to win in the future they must become strong progressives willing to champion the values the largest voting group in history wants to hear- and that voting group is millennials. Millennials must be the Dems focus. Not middle-aged and elderly white Trump voters.

But lets not forget- in every election Hillary has run, the more she talks and the more exposure she gets, and the longer the election goes on, HER POLL NUMBERS DROP. She literally does her best when she does nothing.

This.  For the most part.

Hillary's attacks on Trump were ridiculous, not because they had no basis, but because they were things that people were seeing through the media and could make up their own minds about.  Let the media pile on Trump.  Hillary could have talked policy and allowed voters to make up their own minds.

It's usually a bad strategy when a candidate suspends discussion of public policy to talk about "character".  It strikes many voters as a cheap way to win an election.  "Yes, Sen. Fartz is a wife-beating philanderer who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his posterior, so vote for me even though we disagree on issues because I've got better character."  At a certain level, the more Secretary Sanctimony attacks Sen. Fartz, the more folks become aware that they agree more with Sen. Fartz on issues, and the more they feel as if they're being manipulative.  (Manipulation is only effective if the person being manipulated doesn't discover this until after the deal goes down.)

That's what happened with Hillary.  Her attacks actually took people's focus OFF Trump and onto her.  If she had just let the media bash Trump, talking issues all the way, she'd have probably won.