2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Misses Mark With Millennials
From a distance, the visual of students lining up along Bellflower Road in this Rust Belt city's University Circle neighborhood was good B-roll for Hillary Clinton's campaign, seemingly showcasing her appeal to young people.
It also was an opportunity to claim she was building a firewall of supporters for Ohio's March primary, should Joe Biden step in or Bernie Sanders catch up in a meaningful way.
That initial impression was quickly dispelled.
What looked like a block-long line turned out to be a crowd that could barely fill one-fourth of a football field. And the students in attendance? Well, they weren't exactly there to support the former secretary of State.
“I am sort of a Bernie (Sanders) fan. I also had nothing else to do at 10 in the morning,” said Brian Miller, a chemical engineering student from Pittsburgh, waiting with more than a dozen friends for the event to start.
<snip>
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/06/hillary_misses_mark_with_millennials_127995.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The author is a right winger.
Some of the author's other articles:
Cotton´s Iran Letter Turns Tables on Obama
Arrogant Media Elites Mock Middle America
Extreme-left Dems Pushing Middle America Away
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/salena_zito/
Check out the other articles at the link. The author obviously leans right.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)They never consider the source. If it's negative about Hillary, they post it.
Funny how at the moment you don't see a lot of RCP or any other stealth right wing web sites posting negative stuff about Bernie. I suppose we should be grateful. But for the millionth time,
THE BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN IS A CAMPAIGN OF IDEAS, AND WILL WIN OR LOSE ON THE MERIT OF THOSE IDEAS.
Not how icky Hillary is.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Yes, the staff should have noticed, but she chose them, or at least chose the staff leadership. This is the second article this week-end that shows the staff failing her (the other one was the one preparing an "authentic" Hillary Clinton. You normally do not explain that to reporters).
global1
(25,253 posts)as it seems that they keep giving her wrong advice/direction.
And on this "authentic" do-over - instead of letting the humor and heart of Hillary just blossom forth spontaneously - they are telegraphing to the whole world that they want to change Hillary's ways.
They are telling us that they want the public to see the sides of Mrs. Clinton that are often obscured by the noise and distractions of modern campaigning. They want to show her humor. The self-effacing kind that plays better than her sarcastic retorts, such as when she asked if wiping a computer server was done “with a cloth.”
They are telling us that they are picking up Hillary's negatives from comments, newspaper accounts and focus groups and they are going to have Hillary change her ways so she plays better in Peoria.
And the surprising thing is that - Hillary is going to go along with this change instead of being herself and genuine - and we're going to see Hillary try to force out a new personality - a bogus, contrived personality. Any wonder why people are suspicious of Hillary? That they question her honesty and trustworthiness?
This makes me question her judgement and ability to hire the right people for the job. If she can't hire a decent campaign staff that will help her get to the White House - how is she going to handle things should she actually get to the White House? Who is she going to surround herself with? Seems like she got the wrong advice as SOS with this whole e-mail controversy. I heard one talking head say that she needs to tout her leadership qualities - but who is leading who here?
Will we ever see the genuine Hillary? Or are we always going to be seeing the focus group directed Hillary - the one that her staff wants her to be? Is this a way to run a campaign for the presidency?
Now it appears she will be showing up on both daytime and late night talk shows. I heard this a.m. that she is to appear on Ellen and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. If her staff tries to book her on 'Last Comic Standing' I think she should fire them.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)You'd think she, or whoever is running her show, would do better the second time around.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)defensive reflex and the expectation of low ball incoming. She is so closed off that maybe there is only a little bit left that's real anymore.
Gman
(24,780 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)many times here, including by Hillary supporters.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's a right wing website and take the message accordingly ie they're motivated to slander Hillary.
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)When they publish a similar hit piece on Bernie, will you be citing it uncritically as well? Or will you include a disclaimer.
Not trying to be hyper-critical, however once Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, these right-wing assholes are coming after him.
RCP is good at averaging polls together and that's about it.
Definitely a right wing site.
animalvet
(23 posts)to tout Clinton's strengths and inevitability.
No wonder why "liar" and "dishonest" comes up as the highest keywords on Clinton. It's a right wing source. It's a left wing source. Make up your minds. The spin is so crazy no wonder people tire of it and are flocking to Bernie because there is the real "No Spin Zone" with Bernie.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I've always considered that site a right-leaning one, and that author is among the right-wingers that write for it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)RCP to anything in particular when it comes to politics.
I like honest reporting, which is neither left nor right, just factual.
Right Wing sites are not factual.
What in this article, eg, is untrue? It may not be favorable to Hillary, but it appears to be pretty accurate. Bernie DOES have the Millennial vote pretty much locked up. No one is going to deny that unless maybe a Right Wing site.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)He has strong support from that demographic, but plenty of millennials are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. I know several who plan to do that. All are women. It's a mistake to think that all millennials will vote in any particular way. They simply will not vote as a bloc.
I use the RCP polling aggregation, but don't real articles on that website, since they lean heavily toward conservative viewpoints.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I admin a Counter Strike server which is filled with millennials and the talk on the server is often about politics.
I've never heard a single one saying they're voting for Hillary. I talk with 100s of these people a week, perhaps 1000s if a busy weekend. Know what I hear? 2 things----they're voting Libertarian or they're voting for Bernie Sanders.
They dislike Obama and anything Republican is out of the question. They're sick of the establishment and they're sick of the anti-gay rhetoric as most have friends who are gay.
Who can blame them?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans or Third Way Dems. The rest are who are driving Bernie's campaign, and they certainly have made their reasons known.
If you don't read the articles on the site then you have no way of knowing how the site 'leans'. I do, and many of them have been posted on Left sites, so as I said, I KNOW what a right wing site is.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I'm at the very upper boundary of millenials, and most of Clinton's rise predates my political awareness. By the time I was an adult, she was already running for the Senate.
One of the more curious aspects of this campaign is how Clinton's supporters don't seem to much want to discuss actual, tangible policies. It's always about who she is, Hillary Clinton the person. I feel like I'm less reading about what someone will do for the country and more like I'm hearing about someone's favorite character in a Lifetime original movie.
Which is fine for Boomers and Generation X - they have watched her rise, and they understand the absolutely astronomical amounts of shit the right-wing has thrown at her. To not only survive all that, but to thrive, generates a lot of admiration for her. And it's admiration I've shared. She's definitely a fighter. I just don't particularly care who she is fighting for (1. Herself and her family's power, 2. Big Donors 3. Whatever scraps the rest of us may manage). In precisely that order.
It's actually astounding how little people want to discuss her policies outside of speeches and platitudes. They seem largely invested in her. But Millenials aren't. I really don't think they ever will be. She does not have the charisma or campaigning ability of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
She is going to have major problems in the general, and the fact the Democratic Establishment and her supporters are looking at her unfavorables and still not seeing this is some weapons grade denial. Everything is a right-wing attack against her. Every source is suspect. Nothing is credible. There is only Hillary. Embrace the exclamation point. Hillary!
Again, I think she'll be our nominee, and I think she will lose. Unless the Republicans put up a true clown. Sad that that's what I'm pinning my hopes on.
starroute
(12,977 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Posts in the Hillary Clinton group that come through on the Greatest Page tend to use words like "great," "electrifying," "proud," and "brightest" -- along with a generous sprinkling of capital letters and exclamation marks. Sanders posts are way more restrained in contrast.
I'd been thinking that the Clinton posts might be a desperate attempt to hype speeches and events that weren't really all that great or electrifying -- but that didn't seem like an adequate explanation. DUers aren't normally that over-the-top or given to pointless efforts to spam the board.
But if you're right that Hillary supporters are invested in her personally and not in her policies, that would explain a lot. It would explain the emotional nature of these headings. It would explain why her supporters can be electrified or proud over things that strike others as ho-hum. It would explain why the board has become so divided between two sides that don't seem able to see the other's point of view.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)more than politically. The kind of branding and marketing we've had since 1960 are the very things we must strip from the electoral process.
Perhaps, despite "Feel the Bern," Sen. Sanders' supporters sense the need to eschew this kind of sell-job, and come off a bit harsh in the act.
animalvet
(23 posts)If they can't come up with one issue that Hillary's better than Bernie... then... well...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)race shows how little overall enthusiasm there was for her in the first place.
As for being a fighter, she was embraced by the Third Way, she is part of the Third Way. I never saw her fighting, I saw her doing the opposite actually.
Eg, on the Iraq War Vote, I remember that so clearly. It DID take courage at that time to vote 'no' on that. EVERYONE on the Left at least, KNEW Bush/Cheney et al were lying. She HAD to know.
So, why did she not join the small number of courageous Dems and the one Repub who refused to be a part of that lie?
Was she afraid for her political career? Didn't she know how that war was going to go and how while it might have been popular THEM to vote for it, she should have known, as Bernie did eg, that it would become an anchor around the necks of those who voted for it.
Being a fighter would have meant voting AGAINST that war.
Same thing with the Patriot Act. It took REAL courage back then to vote against it, but Hillary didn't fight that Constitution destroying piece of phony legislation, she went along, AGAIN.
Again, Bernie voted AGAINST it and didn't much care what it did to his political career.
How about DOMA? True she wasn't a Senator then, but she was FOR DOMA, didn't stand up as an individual and fight it, she supported it.
Same thing with the Welfare Reform Bill and Tough on Crime and all those other Third Way policies.
I don't think she was a fighter, she was and is a follower. She LIKED Third Way policies and was funded and supported by the Third Way and their Wall St donors.
2banon
(7,321 posts)She doesn't represent me and my working class family consisting of three generations of enlightened/progressive women and young school aged girls, what so ever.
just sayin'. She maybe trying to target us, but she keeps missing me by a thousand miles.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's not hard to figure out.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)wasn't mentioned in this column from Sept. 7. Here's another look at the event,
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/08/hillary_clinton_citing_tamir_r.html#incart_river
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Why in god's name wouldnt those young people support her?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Not even one!
dsc
(52,163 posts)without risking a lock. It isn't bad enough that you literally found a source whose day job is as an editorial writer for the Scaife underwritten Pittsburgh Tribune Review (no really click on her Real Clear Politics author page). It isn't bad enough that you chose a person who literally wrote a peon to the heroic fight of the poor misunderstood Massey Energy against the horrible EPA (no really she did write that). You read this article, found the following paragraph in it, and thought you should bring it here for us to read.
Instead, Clinton launched into a memorial for Ohio congressmen who were significant long before these kids were politically aware, then thanked the kids for their votes in 2008. (Again, they would have been 12 back then.)
end of quote
So just who were these insignificant Congresspeople that Hillary chose to memorialize at this rally. One was Louis Stokes, who had died about a week before the rally and the other was Stephanie Tubbs Jones who had died out of the blue in August of 2008. Here are links to the obituaries of the two insignificant Congresspeople that Hillary had the audacity to memorialize in the presence of the mendacious viper you chose to bring here.
Here is Stephanie Tubbs Jones' obit http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/washington/21jones.html
Here is Louis Stokes' obit http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/us/louis-stokes-ohio-first-black-congressman-dies-at-90.html
So what did the insignificant Tubbs Jones do? She was the first black woman to run statewide (for Supreme Court she narrowly lost). She went on to become the first black and the first female district attorney in Ohio and cleaned up the horrific mess she inherited. Then she ran for Congress. So what did this insignificant woman do while there? Among other things she and Barbara Boxer objected to Ohio's electoral vote count in 2004 causing the Congress to have to discuss it for a couple of hours before certifying Bush's reelection. You can read to find out what other things this insignificant woman did.
So what about Louis Stokes. What did this insignificant Congressman do? Well, first he rose from nothing to become the first black US Congressman in Ohio's history. When he was sworn in in 1969, Ohio had been a state for over 165 years. And in all that time not one black Congressman had been elected from there. while there he chaired the committee that investigated the death of both Kennedys and MLK. He chaired the ethics commitee. He was the first black on the appropriations committee and the first black to chair a subcommittee of that committee. He used that position to get money for Cleveland in general and the University Circle area in particular (Case Western is the University of University Circle). Point to University Hospital and he helped build that. Point to some programs at Case Western and he helped build that. He sponsered the legislation that made the Office of Minority Health a permanent federal agency thus saving thousands of minority lives. That is some of what this insignificant man did. That is who the mendacious viper you recommended to us couldn't abide spending a few minutes memorializing.
Words can't express just how disgusting I find the piece of filth you chose to bring us. But let me try. Imagine a cistern in which all the shit from Rush Limbaugh spews for a decade is sitting and rotting. Imagine having to do a breast stroke in that cistern. That comes close to the level of disgust I have for the article you chose to bring here. That article says more about the author and its choice says more about you, than it could ever say about Hillary and none of it good.
