PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's Campaign strategy is not working.



genglandoh
06-03-2016, 08:04 AM
Hillary is doing it again and again it is not working.

Last year Hillary tried to hide from the voters and the press.
1. She did a bus tour to meet the average voter.
But she has only staged events with her supporters.
2. She did not take questions for reporters.
3. She even roped off reporters so she would not have to answer any questions

Well this year she is continuing this poor strategy
1. No press conferences
2. Small Town Hall events where she can control who is there.
3. No Debate with Sanders

What are the results California is slipping away.

Why is she afraid of answering questions?

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2016, 08:08 AM
Really sad geng, almost desperate. You asking when HC will start answering Questions! I guess you THINK Trump doesn't have to. I realize you bow in his presence and have a velvet, 4'x6' portrait of him in your living room but really......

Hey, I see that Trump hasn't called HC "crooked Hillary" lately. Do you think because of the Fraud case pending, there could be the reason?

Reynard38
06-03-2016, 08:35 AM
I wasn't aware she had one.

KMacDonald
06-03-2016, 08:38 AM
She's not relevant. She wasn't elected last time she ran and won't be this time around. What were the dems thinking?

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2016, 08:41 AM
What the heck are the Republicans thinking, nominating a jackass like Trump?

Sky Blue
06-03-2016, 08:42 AM
Has she held a press conference in 2016? Has she exposed herself at all to any unscripted questions from the press?

Norman Bernstein
06-03-2016, 08:44 AM
Has she held a press conference in 2016? Has she exposed herself at all to any unscripted questions from the press?

Has Trump actually ANSWERED any of the questions put to him, in his press conference?

Paul Pless
06-03-2016, 08:58 AM
Has she held a press conference in 2016? Has she exposed herself at all to any unscripted questions from the press?contrary to geng's assertion, a pretty brilliant strategy actually. . .

Keith Wilson
06-03-2016, 09:09 AM
Nancy LeTourneau at (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_06/clinton_is_defining_trump060723.php)Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_06/clinton_is_defining_trump060723.php). Mr Trump is nothing if not an easy target.


Clinton is Defining Trump
June 03, 2016

In our soundbite culture, memes develop about politicians that become almost impossible to break. We’ve seen that over the last few years with regards to Paul Ryan. Much of the media defines him as a “wonk,” no matter how unserious his policy proposals actually turn out to be. In the 2000 election, George Bush was the affable guy people wanted to have a beer with, while Dick Cheney was the adult with gravitas.

This is likely why Hillary Clinton is spending so much of her time talking about Donald Trump lately. She is defining him for the public and the press in a way that his Republican rivals during the primary couldn’t. It’s not just that they were afraid of offending his supporters (although I’m sure that was a big part of it). But it’s also because challenging him meant taking on things that also made them vulnerable. When Trump became so extreme about Mexican immigrants and Muslims, it was all based on policies and rhetoric that Republicans had been relying on themselves. The case they were left with was to suggest that they would simply be either a little bit more or less extreme than Trump. None of them could successfully challenge the very basis of his extremism.

Hillary Clinton and Democrats face no such limits. Over the last couple of weeks, she and her surrogates have mounted blistering attacks on the presumptive Republican nominee. It is almost as if you can hear a collective sigh of relief from those who kept silent during the Republican slugfest of a primary. The challenges to Trump are not unfounded in the way attacks can sometimes be in elections. They are all things we’ve been noticing for a while now, but haven’t seen articulated very well.

It is also interesting to observe Trump’s response to all of this. He is doing the only thing he knows how to do - dive into the gutter and lash out. For example, after Clinton’s speech yesterday in which she challenged Trump’s fitness to be commander-in-chief, he said that she should go to jail over the email issue. That kind of thing will play very well with his rabid supporters - but when it comes to addressing his fitness for office, it simply reinforces Clinton’s message about him. This tweet sums it up pretty well:

"@HillaryClinton pulling off what no GOP Trump challenger could: Taking him on in a way that makes her seem bigger, not smaller, than he."

I’ve heard some people suggest that Clinton is spending too much time talking about Trump and not enough on her own vision and proposals. My response to that would be that there are still five months left in this campaign. She has plenty of time to do that. But at the outset, she is setting the meme in place that will define Donald Trump throughout the election season.

Dave Wright
06-03-2016, 09:53 AM
What are the results California is slipping away.



Says an anonymous internet troll.

Others disagree. Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

"According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has a 95%chance of winning the California primary."

genglandoh
03-12-2017, 11:35 AM
Title: Study: Hillary Clinton's election loss likely due in part to poorly run campaign, advertising
A new study conducted by the Wesleyan Media Project found that ineffective advertising, including messages they claim were "devoid of policy discussions," likely played a role in Hillary Clinton's 2016 election loss to Donald Trump.
Link: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/11/study-why-hillary-clinton-lost-election-to-donald-trump-bad-campaign-advertising/21880086/

CWSmith
03-12-2017, 12:08 PM
Here is a shocker: It will be dark tonight and brighter once the sun comes up.

LeeG
03-12-2017, 12:08 PM
Title: Study: Hillary Clinton's election loss likely due in part to poorly run campaign, advertising
A new study conducted by the Wesleyan Media Project found that ineffective advertising, including messages they claim were "devoid of policy discussions," likely played a role in Hillary Clinton's 2016 election loss to Donald Trump.
Link: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/11/study-why-hillary-clinton-lost-election-to-donald-trump-bad-campaign-advertising/21880086/

While DT simply said he is great, smart, huge, and would give folks someone to piss on, Mexicans, immigrants, refugees, Muslims. DT didn't address policy one bit because the voters don't vote on policy but feelings. You can see how dysfunctional his actions are already with a bias towards oligarchs and not that vast disgruntled middle class.

genglandoh
03-12-2017, 12:19 PM
While DT simply said he is great, smart, huge, and would give folks someone to piss on, Mexicans, immigrants, refugees, Muslims. DT didn't address policy one bit because the voters don't vote on policy but feelings. You can see how dysfunctional his actions are already with a bias towards oligarchs and not that vast disgruntled middle class.

Sorry but you are wrong.
Trump was very specific in what he said he would do if he was elected President.
And so far he is following thru.
1. Stop illegal immigrates from crossing the US southern border.
2. Stop taking in refugees from war torn countries until we can check their backgrounds.
3. Stop US companies from moving their manufacturing from the US.
4. Renegegotiate trade deals.
5. Reduce Government regulations

David W Pratt
03-12-2017, 12:44 PM
It is interesting to hold June's confident predictions up to the cold light of day
Are polling companies changing their methods at all?

LeeG
03-12-2017, 03:39 PM
Sorry but you are wrong.
Trump was very specific in what he said he would do if he was elected President.
And so far he is following thru.
1. Stop illegal immigrates from crossing the US southern border.
2. Stop taking in refugees from war torn countries until we can check their backgrounds.
3. Stop US companies from moving their manufacturing from the US.
4. Renegegotiate trade deals.
5. Reduce Government regulations

2. Iran isn't a war torn country. There are many other war torn countries not on the list. The ban is based on flawed assumptions and created without the advice of experts in the field of terrorism and pushed through without consultation of those agencies who have to implement it or deal with the consequences. Trumps "terror expert" has no recognition amongst real experts. It was a campaign issue to cultivate fear so as to convince voters he could protect them. He's doing what he said he would do to maintain your loyalty, even if its counterproductive.
Remember the Iraq war was supposed to be a part of the GWOT but it ended up creating more terrorism? Trumps dumbass immigration ban is like that, to win politically in the US he's willing to threaten our security.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/323320-trumps-immigration-ban-is-counterproductive-in-war-on

The newest executive order banning immigration from six Muslim-majority countries — Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen –is again likely to fuel terrorism recruitment in the Middle East, Europe and here in the U.S. These moves are exactly what ISIS and al-Qaeda favor—they want their constituencies to believe the West is at war with Islam and Muslims everywhere, so they can convince there’s a need for “defensive” jihad.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/hundreds-of-u-s-diplomats-protest-trump-immigration-ban-in-internal-memos/

Hundreds of U.S. Diplomats Protest Trump Immigration Ban in Internal Memos
The number of State Department officials signing memos protesting President Donald Trump’s immigration and refugee ban quickly surpassed 200, department officials told Foreign Policy on Monday. The exact number of signatures is unknown as several different draft versions are in circulation, but the number far outstrips the 51 signatories who spoke out against former President Barack Obama’s Syria policy last summer, a number viewed at the time as “extremely large, if not unprecedented.”

The surge in opposition to Trump’s executive order sows immediate tension between Foggy Bottom and the White House, and creates a headache for Rex Tillerson, the president’s nominee for secretary of state who’s expected to receive Senate approval on Wednesday.

“This ban … will not achieve its stated aim to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,” warned one version of the memo. Rather, it will inflame anti-American sentiment and “immediately sour relations” with counterterrorism partners in the Muslim world, the memo stated.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-01-30/donald-trumps-immigration-order-is-bad-foreign-policy

President Donald Trump banned the entry of people from seven majority Muslim countries last week. Leaders as far apart ideologically as former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Bernie Sanders warned the ban could become a recruitment tool for terrorists.

In addition, the U.S. risks straining or losing important diplomatic ties and fragile relationships. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and even Theresa May have warned about the geopolitical effects of a ban on immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries. Iran has already promised to take "reciprocal measures" after Trump's immigration order, although the exact measures remain to be specified.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716079-divided-nation-seeks-divided-world-what-visa-ban-shows-about-american-foreign-policy

Two national-security hawks in the Senate, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have said they fear the travel ban “will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.” Other Republicans in Congress who have pushed back against the policy, though, have griped about questions of process rather than substance, complaining for instance about lack of consultation. Mr Trump was hardly the first choice of presidential candidate for many Republican members of Congress, especially in the Senate. But they are in no mood to topple him: they yearn to cut taxes and slash business regulation, and think Mr Trump will sign the laws that do so.

And they are also frightened. Chaos alarms Republican grandees and their business supporters. But if chaos is what Mr Trump’s most ferocious insurgents seek, and if it serves as a signifier of authenticity to the base upon which the legislators’ electoral fortunes stand, then chaos is a price they will accept, for now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-denounced-foreign-policy-experts.html

WASHINGTON — More than 130 members of America’s foreign policy establishment denounced President Trump’s revised travel ban on Friday as just as damaging to the United States’ interests and reputation as his original order that halted refugees and froze travelers from predominantly Muslim countries.

In a letter to Mr. Trump, the former government officials and experts said even the scaled-back order will “weaken U.S. security and undermine U.S. global leadership.” And they said it continues to signal to Muslim allies that — as the Islamic State and other extremist propaganda profess — the United States is an enemy of Islam.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/03/the-curious-case-of-sebastian-gorka-trumps-new-terrorism-guru-security-clearance/

There has been a lot written lately about Sebastian Gorka. The former national security editor at Breitbart is currently deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and a member of Stephen Bannon’s internal White House “think tank,” the Strategic Initiatives Group (SIG). If you’re not intimately familiar with Gorka’s foreign-policy chops, that’s not unusual – prior to taking his current position, Gorka, who holds a doctorate in political science from Corvinus University in Hungary, was an obscure figure, working on the fringes of the counterterrorism community.

Now he is everywhere, appearing regularly on TV to defend Trump’s ban on travelers and refugees from Muslim-majority countries and elaborate on the president’s murky foreign policy. He is particularly fond of criticizing the Obama administration for not being manly enough to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” In a March 1 tweet, aping Trump’s penchant for odd capitalization, Gorka wrote: “After 8 years of obfuscation and disastrous Counterterrorism policies those 3 words [radical Islamic terrorism] are key to victory against Global Jihadism.” In a similar vein, he told Sean Hannity at CPAC on February 22 that “the only way you can win any war … is when you are allowed to talk truthfully about who the enemy is.” But, not to worry, Gorka has assured us, “the alpha males are back” and a “new sheriff is in town, his name is Donald J. Trump.”


http://www.businessinsider.com/sebastian-gorka-trump-bio-profile-2017-2

Gorka was joined on a panel by two well-respected counterterrorism and national-security experts — Georgia State University professor Mia Bloom and Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow Clint Watts.

But he showed up unprepared, Bloom and Watts said, refusing to answer the questions that had been provided to the panelists weeks in advance.

Bloom told Business Insider that before things got underway, the panel organizer started to discuss which panelists would answer which questions. Gorka, she said, refused to answer anything.

"Gorka stood up after me and said, 'Well, I've been invited here under false pretenses. I couldn't possibly address this level of granularity,'" Bloom said. "He made it sound like he had no idea that they were going to ask us these questions."

Watts, a former Army officer and FBI agent, confirmed this description of events, characterizing Gorka's performance as a "disaster."

"Instead of participating in the panel the way he was supposed to, he was kind of grandstanding," Watts said. "He said, 'I'm going to stand up because I'm a lecturer and I want to see the crowd,' and I thought, this is bulls---. You don't act like that."

Bloom and Watts also said he tried to use the panel as a platform to sell his book.

"He actually carried around his book and was basically trying to sell his book to people in the crowd," Watts said. "It was low class."
...
Michael S. Smith II, a terrorism analyst who has advised members of Congress and White House officials, said "no one has anything nice to say" about Gorka. Smith said he has the level of expertise "one would expect from a Congressional intern."

"His work is of little interest because he has never — not that I can think of — contributed anything to the body of knowledge which informs understandings of threats posed by the Salafi-jihadist groups of interest to him," Smith told Business Insider.



Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, also said he has reservations about Gorka influencing policy in the White House.

"Gorka does not have much of a reputation in serious academic or policymaking circles," Walt told Business Insider. "He has never published any scholarship of significance and his views on Islam and US national security are extreme even by Washington standards. His only real 'qualification' was his prior association with Breitbart News, which would be a demerit in any other administration."