le_nelson_mandela_face posted:Hillary Clinton is reportedly considering launching a television talk show so she can stay in the limelight and run for president again in 2020.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/26/report-hillary-clinton-wants-to-launch-a-television-talk-show/#ixzz4WtBg8kKf
it is a means tested pathway to the presidency
This plus rogue potus staff are interesting
insta_gramsci posted:this is probably the result of a recursive post-election analysis from that ada campaign algorithm that podesta keeps on a macbook in his desk
john podesta selden, predicting the collapse of the Democratic Party in his algorithms devised a plan to finally win an election in 1000 years
Washington Post
Palmieri on MSNBC says Dems should not use mass crowds to move left: "not everyone wants $15/hour...it's all about identity on our side now"
— Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) February 8, 2017
PALMIERI: You are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour.
TODD: Don't assume it's a policy push.
PALMIERI: Don't assume that the answer to big crowds is moving policy to the left. I think the answer to big crowds is engaging much as you can, to be as supportive as you can, and understanding-- I mean, what these people want, they are desperate, it's all about identity on our side now. They want to show, he does not support me, I support you refugee, I support you immigrant in my neighborhood, I want to defend you. Women who are rejecting Nordstrom's and Niemann Marcus are saying this is power for them. Donald Trump doesn't take me seriously, well I'm showing you my value and my power. And I think it's like our own version of identity politics on the left that's more empowering and I think that's where, that's a safer place to be.
TODD: All right, we shall see. I think you're right. Washington Democrats are kind of grasping, they're trying to figure this out.
The answer... must be more identities
the Democratic wipeout was so enormous that it will probably end up in Guinness World Records. Only Wyoming gave Trump a higher percentage of its presidential vote. But even more striking than his 42-point margin of victory was the fact that Clinton received 54,000 fewer votes than were cast earlier for candidates in the Democratic primary — a contest that Sanders (125,000 total) won in every single county.
tears posted:
Dead people have been voting democrat for decades. Nothing new.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.
But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.
Trump, who didn’t exactly run as a wonk, aired a more typical number of policy-focused ads compared with past elections. As an example, the study notes his first big TV buy was for an ad called “Two Americas” — one that portrayed life under Clinton’s immigration policies and one under Trump’s. The Clinton world is pretty bleak. Trump’s is rosy. In all, Factcheck.org gave it a so-so review, saying the claims were based on “murky evidence and misrepresentations.”
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
Of Clinton’s “negative” ads, about 90 percent went after Trump’s personality. About 10 percent went after Trump’s policies. By contrast, most of Trump’s ads went after Clinton’s personality and her policies.
The study concludes that Clinton’s strategy may have backfired badly. Here’s what they have to say:
Evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007).
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.
Of course, as Vox’s Tara Golshan has pointed out, Clinton’s team likely pursued this line against Trump because they thought it was working — most of the polling suggested Clinton was going to win on Election Day.
But the new report also confirms what multiple outlets have already reported: that the Clinton campaign did not appear to realize its vulnerability in the Rust Belt until the final days of the election and, as a result, blew millions that could have been spent elsewhere. Clinton’s team spent virtually nothing advertising in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania until the final week — when they then decided to exponentially increase their resources there.
The Wesleyan researchers write, with some understatement:
It may very well be that Clinton misallocated advertising funds (both hyper-targeting on local cable and advertising in non-traditional battlegrounds like Arizona rather than in the Midwest, for example) and a lack of policy messaging in advertising may have hurt Clinton enough to have made a difference.
The blown money on TV advertising in Arizona was exacerbated by a ground strategy that local Rust Belt Democrats have heavily criticized. As Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) told Vox in December 2016, the Clinton campaign appeared to do little to relate to Midwest union workers in the runup to the vote:
As far as I know, she didn’t stop at any UAW halls. I probably would have been invited to be with her if she was going to one, and I never got that invitation. She didn't do any labor-specific events that I'm aware of. It's pretty rare that you aren't working closely with labor in a campaign, especially for statewide office. I'm sitting right here now, talking to you in the parking lot of the sheet metal workers before their holiday party. I'm going to be with my friends, with the sheet metal workers, to convey that they are important to me by showing up at their events. Labor simply cannot be taken for granted in Michigan. Not doing that sort of event certainly was a major oversight.
Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()
Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:nah it was a document outlining democratic party internet strategy that started out plausible before it went into "pay SJWs to falsely accuse people of racism" lol
this is exactly why the best practices committee came up with the "Read -> Comprehend -> Post" campaign
Chelsea Clinton to get lifetime achievement award https://t.co/ogYnfNGnDu pic.twitter.com/h9Q3vo3Fq0
— The Hill (@thehill) March 22, 2017
ilmdge posted:Remember when Trump was asked about all the threats to Jewish centers and said, "Sometimes it's the reverse"
remember when he suggested that some of the threats could be a false flag to get attention and people got mad
Look at this, Direct grandfather had one son. This is also Eric's bloodline lol pic.twitter.com/v4s4RRSv9I
— Staff Sgt. Joker (@ArmyStrang) March 24, 2017
roseweird posted:who even are these people
I shall require women to wear aprons at all times, so they might supply their holy grill masters with ample wetnaps, day and night.
— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) September 28, 2012
roseweird posted:who even are these people
Donald John Trump, Sr. (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.
Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He then took charge of The Trump Organization, the real estate and construction firm founded by his paternal grandmother, which he ran for four and a half decades until 2017. During his real estate and business career, Trump built, renovated, and managed numerous office towers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He has lent the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He owned the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants from 1996 to 2015, and he hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. As of 2017, Forbes listed him as the 544th wealthiest person in the world (201st in the United States) with a net worth of $3.5 billion.
Why is that ironic, you ask?
Well, Messina, a former aide to Montana Senator Max Baucus, served as Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Operations under President Obama where he became the unofficial enforcer for the neoliberal elements within the administration. He was a key player in ensuring the Affordable Care Act included neither a single-payer plan or even a public option.
As The Nation reported back in 2011, Messina used his influence to place his old boss at the center of the health care debate, helping to secure his “gang of six” senators to write the legislation which would eventually become the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, this move was widely viewed as a misstep as it slowed the process down, and opened it up to the influence of industry. And yet, while this was going on, Messina took on the role of bully-boy to shield Baucus from progressive critics and scuttle efforts to reform the bill by groups like Health Care for America Now (HCAN).
As the article explains, “When they were negotiating special deals with industry, Messina and Baucus chief of staff Jon Selib were also pushing major healthcare companies and trade associations to pour millions of dollars into TV ads defending the bill.”