Hillary "I am Winning" Candidate Hands Over White House to Orange Mutant.

[evildevil]

Queen Hillary Blames Ghost of Ronald Regan for Losing Election.It is now becoming clear that Clinton’s ground game - the watchword for defenders of her alleged competence - was actually under-resourced and poorly executed. Like so much else in this election, her field strategy was hostage to the colossal arrogance and consequent incompetence of the

Comments

[mimblexwimble]

The allegedly ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ white working class is cool with a multicultural coalition as long as you give them the progressive economics.

Allegedly? Let's not downplay the fact that white people showed themselves to be both racist and sexist when they cast their votes this year. Admitting that doesn't affect the argument that Clinton's campaign didn't do a good enough job winning votes/wasn't economically progressive. Brushing it aside or suggesting it's not true, however, says a lot about the white liberals making the remarks ... and what they are and are not willing to blame for this loss.

[natyanayaki]

^^

[amyura]

OMG this!

[yamair]

Yeah. It's amazing how things aren't as mutually exclusive as people often want them to be.

[rainbows_]

Oh my god, the incompetence is overwhelming. https://t.co/SApO0feghp pic.twitter.com/bH0ToWNG3c
- Asinus Pervicax (@Cato_of_Utica) November 17, 2016

She's 1-2 in contested elections. Her Senate races were run against nothings and nobodies, and she still spent an ungodly amount of cash.
- Asinus Pervicax (@Cato_of_Utica) November 17, 2016

PSYCHOLOGICAL GAMES AREN'T A WAY TO WIN. DO THE WORK. pic.twitter.com/gcOWOUlLpw
- Asinus Pervicax (@Cato_of_Utica) November 17, 2016

Clinton got outworked. Out-fucking-worked by what amounts Vincent Adultman merged into one body with a spray tan. pic.twitter.com/wgqbZRdssI
- Asinus Pervicax (@Cato_of_Utica) November 17, 2016

Clinton staff in Michigan had to raise $300k on their own to get 500 canvassers in last wks after Brooklyn ignored https://t.co/PGbfHx1I9F
- Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) November 16, 2016

In Wisconsin, the same thing happened. Requests for $ went unanswered. They had to raised their own $1m https://t.co/PGbfHx1I9F
- Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) November 16, 2016

[natyanayaki]

Where the fuck did all the money HRC raised go? Where the fuck did the money the DNC gave to her go?

[blackjedii]

I'm betting high-profile "advising firms."

Sure as heck didn't go anywhere useful. :/

[natyanayaki]

:(

[meadowphoenix]

Well, actually what this says is that given a reasonable campaign for minority and marginalized voters, white "blue-collar" voters, could in fact be sidelined. Like the conclusion I would take from here is that if you're lazy you need more white people, but if you're efficient you probably don't.

So I talked to my mother about it, because she's tangentially involved in local politics at the Kentucky/Ohio border (aka has a lot of friends who are really involved), and she says it definitely wasn't the same as in 2012, her activist friends weren't pleased and even aside from Clinton, the people who organized GOTV in previous years weren't involved like before.

[blackjedii]

Idk man. That also assumes all minorities will vote the same which, as we saw with Hispanics, is not true.

I actually think it is a good question with regards to the limits of data-driven directions. Because data never tells the whole story.

[meadowphoenix]

I mean, no it doesn't. Outreach to minorities, and not being lazy about it, would take into consideration that latinos aren't a monolith of nationalities, let alone feelings, and some nationalities lean more conservative than others. Same with Asians. If the data said that all the nationalities were split, I might agree, but I sincerely doubt it actually said that. I think it treated Latinos as a group. (538 did treat latinos as a group, which I questioned at the time, but they didn't do so with Asians and it lead to interesting results).

Data always tells the whole story if you ask it the right questions. Usually people don't because people have biases starting out and don't try to dig deeper if their data confirms their original bias.

[blackjedii]

Data always tells the whole story if you ask it the right questions. Usually people don't because people have biases starting out and don't try to dig deeper if their data confirms their original bias.

This is a good way to explain it. Perhaps I should phrase it as singular data and not expanded like what's the word.... arrays? Same thing with race and gender breakdown without looking at incomes or religious status or family vs. single adult type questions.

Which reminds me I -just- got a call about next year's governor race in VA. And the questions were simple yes/no repub / lib types. Hate the yes-no part.

[blackjedii]

where did the money go?

[invisiblegirlx]

Well yeah she could have won if minority voters and young people showed up for her like Obama, but they didn't.  also, they just assumed they had some states in the bag and didn't put in the work there. I have to add to the chorus of where'd the money go?