http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
Living in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, it is extremely difficult for Democrats and others who don't support President-Elect Trump to cope with the loss, especially as increasingly worrisome appointments are made. Looking back, there is no true way to know what really caused his unexpected victory, but exploring possible reasons for Clinton's loss could help make campaigns more successful in the future. According to the article, what are some possible reasons for the loss? Does hearing more about the campaign process in a state that she eventually lost bring any new reasons to light? How do you think Hillary's campaign could have been more effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading this article really just annoyed me. I really wish I could never hear about this election ever again. Obviously the Democrats screwed up, and there are countless factors to point fingers at. I really do not care for all the speculation about what could have gone differently. Clinton simply ran an uninspiring campaign.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, Clinton lost because her campaign was complacent and didn't bother trying to hold blue states. They just expected to win them. In hindsight, this was a terrible strategy. However, I think there is more to the loss than just the complacency. As the article noted, from the moment Clinton launched the campaign, it was obvious that she was uninspiring. Honestly, her announcement video was cringeworthy because it seemed so fake. Almost every aspect of the campaign was overly planned and robotic, unlike Trump's. I am no fan of Trump, but like Sanders, he connected with people and acted more like a real person. Furthermore. I think another plague on Clinton's campaign was her association with Wall Street and the fact that she represented the status quo. She was basically running as a conservative. With so many Americans struggling financially and income inequality increasing to excessive levels, it is obvious in hindsight that she was facing an uphill battle against a candidate that centered his whole campaign around helping the "the common man". I think union voters saw through her facade of being a strong union supporter. Moreover, I think her campaign's strategy of having celebrity after celebrity stump for her was a very misguided strategy, as it just reinforces the idea that she is an establishment "elitist" who couldn't care less about average Americans. Finally, I think that her position on Syrian refugees was detrimental to her campaign. Americans are freaked out about terrorism, and whether or not the refugees pose a threat, taking in thousands of people from an area of high terrorist activity is not a wise political move.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely ways Hillary could've improved her campaign. It would've been beneficial to do more in local communities for people to genuinely get to know her and dispel the misconceptions about her cold personality. She should've looked at how Obama went about campaigning and used some of his tactics. Looking at her strategy won't do too much good in this situation any longer, but hopefully future candidates can see what to do down the road.
ReplyDeleteHillary could have focused more on holding blue states and traveling to smaller communities, but most of all, her campaign was uninspiring. All this is old news, and people should focus on what to do moving forward rather than poring over the details of an election that was over a month ago.
ReplyDeleteI'm so annoyed with all the articles focusing on the election and why Clinton didn't win. Clinton didn't connect with people. She is filthy rich, has lied, kept information hidden, expected to win certain states with out much effort, and has a history of scandals that weren't exactly hard to dig up. In short, she wasn't a good candidate to begin with and was only nominated because the Democratic Party was so caught up in themselves that they forgot that in order to win an election, they need everyday people from all kinds of backgrounds to vote for her.
ReplyDeleteHillary could have strengthened her campaign in many ways, and now the Democratic Party could have done differently things to win the country over in the election. The main point, though, is the fact that Trump is our president elect and no matter how many of us are upset about it, it is the way that it is and we just have to accept the fact. There is no use in dwelling on the past at this point.
ReplyDeleteClinton had a very weak campaign, she didn't do a good job securing her blue states. She didn't impress many people with her campaign, this is why she didn't have the expected votes, losing to Trump. But we need to accept the results and unite as a nation, cannot keep hanging our heads because of the turnout.
ReplyDeleteThe loser of any election is going to wonder why the results turned out how they did. It's interesting to see that there are many little things that went wrong. When I see this article, I realize that there wasn't just one thing that went wrong, she would've had to run an entirely different campaign if she wanted to win. It's puzzling to me though, because everyone knew how Clinton was running her campaign but she was still predicted to win.
ReplyDeleteI think one way Clinton could have gotten more voters was focusing on more republican areas instead of traveling to Democratic areas. After reading this article there are many other things she could have done to run a more successful campaign. I think many people were suspicious of her and she wasn't inspiring, which was another main reason why she didn't win.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is interesting to understand exactly how Clinton lost the election, it is also painful to hear; at this point, there is no reason to speculate about what could have gone wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions a poor economic plan, Comey's letter, and Russian hacking all as the possible downfall of Clinton's campaign but eventually decides that it was just poor campaign strategy that lost her the election. If Clinton and her team had concentrated more on resonating with people from less urban areas, especially in states that were previously considered solid blue. I absolutely believe that had Clinton's team campaigned differently-- in both their overall strategy and places they visited-- then Clinton would have won the election, a belief that's strongly supported by Clinton's overwhelming win of the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, Clinton did not do a good enough job in holding the states she needed to win. Her campaign failed to capture the hearts of the core Democratic demographic, as she was simply unrelatable. People that voted for the young, charismatic Barack Obama were just not as inspired by the old, rich person that Clinton is. It seems to me that the Democratic party backed the wrong horse.
ReplyDeleteI remember while campaigning was going on that Clinton was in Philly the day before the election, hosting a rally for more votes but I'm pretty sure most of that crowd would have voted for her anyway. I always thought at least part of the reason she lost was that she spent too much time in areas that were already bright blue. While on the same day Trump spent time in battleground areas. It's a shame looking back and it sucks that there's only retrospect.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Clinton spent too much time in areas that were already safely blue. If she had spent more time campaigning in swing states or even states that were less solidly leaning towards blue, the outcome may have been different. The democrats should reevaluate their approach for future elections and spend more time campaigning in the states that were lost the next time around.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this article makes a lot of excuses in terms of who made Hillary lose instead of addressing the reason why she lost. Instead of focusing on poor campaign strategies, and/lack of appeal to certain demographics, they choose to talk about the FBI and Russian hacks. I think these are just convenient ways of justifying the loss.
ReplyDeleteHillary didn't run a good campaign. I worked on it for about 20 hours, so trust me, I know- there was a lack of communication on all fronts. She didn't make enough of a commitment to any one place to make a lasting impact where it mattered.
ReplyDeleteNow that the election is over, there is no point in sitting here and discussing what could've happened with the election. Something that definitely contributed to her loss is the fact that she didn't focus enough on the republican states, but gave all her attention to the democratic states, where it wasn't needed. The point is, Clinton made some poor decisions and ultimately ran a poor campaign.
ReplyDelete