Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years

fhl said:
That night was one of the greatest nights ever.

7568345c42268f904bb253672e0993a3


I love being reminded of it.
Thanks, Tony.
More...

You're welcome.I had two great ones in Nov 08 and 12 and will have another in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
I agree that taking out the countrys most populist and biggest economic state is a way for The GOP to win more votes.
More...

Glad we both agree that the 38 million people in California shouldn't get to decide how the other 280 million people in other states live their lives.
 
peilthetraveler said:
Glad we both agree that the 38 million people in California shouldn't get to decide how the other 280 million people in other states live their lives.
More...

I agree.The Presidential candidate the most people from the entire country votes for should be President.If people from different states want to live differently from Californians they have Mayoral,city council,Governor etc races for that.
 
gwb-trading said:
A study of the obvious...

Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...clinton-ran-one-worst-campaigns-in-years.html

A new study by the Wesleyan Media Project has found that the 2016 presidential campaign run by Hillary Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years.

Interestingly, the directors of the study dispute the argument that “advertising doesn’t matter” in elections. Clinton’s failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, was the biggest reason for her defeat by Donald Trump.

The study also backs the view that Clinton’s focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her opposition contributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.

Published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the study found that one candidate in particular, Hillary Clinton, “almost ignored discussions of policy.” The study states the lack of advertising effectiveness “may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.”

Clinton, who was widely predicted to win by the mainstream media, suffered unexpected losses in states where she failed to air ads until the final week before the polls. In contrast, Trump advertised in these states (Wisconsin and Michigan) for weeks before he won.
More...

Was a study required for this?

Hillary Clinton ran the worst campaign since the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign.

The face of feminism did not get where she is on her own. She rode her husbands coattails. Thats why that democrat party are frauds.
 
Killary Clinton lost in few key areas, she was so sure some areas would side for her, she stopped campaigning in them like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Pennsylvania.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/25/13699146/clinton-campaign-strategy-win-polls

Shady Clinton got zapped twice by FBI director Comey.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...tters-led-to-loss-Hillary/article16444479.ece

Having her husband have that sit down with Attorney General Loretta Lynch during summer before showed America citizens the Power the Clintons had and average citizen does not have making I am sure some who simply don't vote Republican to vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/18/politics/loretta-lynch-james-comey-bill-clinton/index.html

Young voters who backed old man Sanders, did not have faith in Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...u-liked-sanders-so-why-didnt-you-vote-clinton

Trump got rid of his campaign managers who weren't managing right and believe President Trump will continue the same if personal don't do as expected.
 
Tony Stark said:
I agree.The Presidential candidate the most people from the entire country votes for should be President.If people from different states want to live differently from Californians they have Mayoral,city council,Governor etc races for that.
More...


Look, you're a democrat so you should be all for protecting "minorities", correct? Well a national popular vote would reduce representation of states that have smaller populations(minority states) and they would be at the mercy of majoritarian rule. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would be like 2 lions and a zebra voting on what to have for dinner.

Why would a president ever offer to take care of a small state when they can just promise the top 10 populous states everything? Basically taking the taxes from the have nots and giving to the haves. Does that seem fair to you?
 
peilthetraveler said:
Look, you're a democrat so you should be all for protecting "minorities", correct? Well a national popular vote would reduce representation of states that have smaller populations(minority states) and they would be at the mercy of majoritarian rule. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would be like 2 lions and a zebra voting on what to have for dinner.

Why would a president ever offer to take care of a small state when they can just promise the top 10 populous states everything? Basically taking the taxes from the have nots and giving to the haves. Does that seem fair to you?
More...


I agree with much of what you say but those problems are solved with States having representatives in the House and Senate to protect the states from abuse from the executive office and Congress is more powerful then The Presidency.
 
Hillary couldn't even win the election when she and obama urged all those illegals to vote for her. What a freakin loser. The world's biggest.

Election-totals-11-24.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top