Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:22 AM Feb 2016

MSNBC: "Warning signs for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina"

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warning-signs-hillary-clinton-south-carolina

As of last week, the Clinton campaign had only two campaign offices in South Carolina: one in Charleston and another in the capital, Columbia, with just 14 full-time staffers including state director Clay Middleton. The campaign also has nine “get out the vote” sites – smaller-scale sites devoted to turnout – across the state.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, had 240 staffers on the ground as of last week – 80 percent of them African-American – spread across 10 offices statewide.
...
Hillary is the very person who should know about infrastructure, because that’s how she lost to Obama in 2008 in the first place.”
...
Voters in South Carolina have been able to vote early, absentee or in person since January 1, and the Sanders campaign is taking full advantage before the end of early voting for Democrats on February 26.
...
“The Bernie people are doing the very thing that she should have been doing,” said the veteran campaigner. “At the end of the day, people want to be asked. Knock on my door.”
...
Some worry that the Clinton campaign took the wrong lessons from 2008, assuming that black voters will fall in line for Clinton the way they did for Obama, the way Democrats presume they will every time.
...
But conversations with elected officials and Democratic strategists in the state reveal little excitement over Clinton’s candidacy and a growing concern that not only are black voters not enthused, her campaign is being out-hustled by Team Sanders.

“They took [black voters] for granted and underestimated Bernie’s support,” said State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter...They’ve now discovered there are black folks ‘feeling the Bern.’”
...
Clinton, meanwhile, has struggled to attract high-profile black surrogates who go beyond her traditional support base: Congressional Black Caucus members like longtime Clinton friend and ally John Lewis and the church and party leaders who supported her in 2008, as well.

“I suppose they are influential in their home states,” Cobb-Hunter said of the CBC members who announced their endorsement Thursday. “But that’s not moving people here.”
...
South Carolina Clinton supporters had expected a parade of stars to flood the state for Clinton ahead of the primary to help motivate voters. It hasn’t happened, and sources close to the campaign say it’s not for lack of outreach from the national campaign.

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MSNBC: "Warning signs for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina" (Original Post) thesquanderer Feb 2016 OP
I hope he is gaining on her. Vattel Feb 2016 #1
Tons of work.... daleanime Feb 2016 #2
And he's just the guy to do it. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #3
I see some Hillary stuff here in Chicago. BTW if you are in Chicago today: mucifer Feb 2016 #4
SW suburb of Chicago. No sign of her signs. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author xloadiex Feb 2016 #29
That would be easy to do. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #38
It's looking more and more like Bernie knows how cali Feb 2016 #6
Hillary has no experience running a successful campaign against a serious challenger. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #8
The problems is that when she has a formidable opponent CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #10
All the better for Bernie, then Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #22
She wasn't expecting a campaign. EL34x4 Feb 2016 #35
Exactly Hydra Feb 2016 #40
Hustle Bagsgroove Feb 2016 #7
Nice post. I'm reminded of Marx' observation that history repeats itself, the first KingCharlemagne Feb 2016 #17
have a heart for that! Ligyron Feb 2016 #25
I think she is Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #27
I think she is making the EXACT same mistake... tex-wyo-dem Feb 2016 #33
Thanks to Obama himself. He was the candidate to beat her. Let's not diminish him as a formidale Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #36
Ruh-roh cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #9
Really? They're this dumb?? Or this short of money? nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #11
Well, we know she's got a bigger war chest than Bernie, so it's not the money. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #12
Bernie has been frugal while Clinton has been frivolous. Cassiopeia Feb 2016 #30
nor can she muscle her way through the electorate with bbgrunt Feb 2016 #34
No, she doesn't have a bigger war chest. jeff47 Feb 2016 #37
These are the numbers I see... thesquanderer Feb 2016 #39
If Sanders can win in either Nevada or especially South Carolina, BillZBubb Feb 2016 #13
If the Inevitable candidate cannot get a single decisive victory... thesquanderer Feb 2016 #16
The Clinton campaign is operating out of at least 6 other cities in addition Persondem Feb 2016 #14
Meanwhile, Fight for $15 active in SC bread_and_roses Feb 2016 #15
And every time (EVERY TIME ) Volaris Feb 2016 #18
Actually, placing a minimum wage hike on a ballot Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #23
$250k per hour is fine for Hillary and Bill. $600k per year is fine for Chelsea. $12 per hour Skeeter Barnes Feb 2016 #20
$20.22 is a living wage for South Carolina. DhhD Feb 2016 #26
Bernie's got this Depaysement Feb 2016 #28
State and local parties Depaysement Feb 2016 #19
Hillary's fire wall is... Omaha Steve Feb 2016 #21
It seems as if Hillary thinks she can just buy the nomination. jalan48 Feb 2016 #24
"I thought this was how Republican's ran campaigns." 406-Boz Feb 2016 #31
Pantsuit thinks a certain segment are super voters and that they would heel to her. RATM435 Feb 2016 #32
That's it. 2008 wasn't a fluke. She's a terrible campaigner. Recursion Feb 2016 #41

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
3. And he's just the guy to do it.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:30 AM
Feb 2016

Nevada, South Carolina, hell, even here in Illinois, I am seeing Bernie stickers on cars. Not a sign of one for Hillary, and the heat isn't even on yet here.

Well, it is on, given our -20 F wind chills, but not the political heat. If Bernie wins in Illinois, it is all over for her.

Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #5)

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
38. That would be easy to do.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 12:26 PM
Feb 2016

She and Rahm are quite close, being fellow millionaires and all.

There are plenty of visuals out there. One simply needs to gather them up before our primary.

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
8. Hillary has no experience running a successful campaign against a serious challenger.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:45 AM
Feb 2016

She had no serious opposition in her New York runs for Senate.

In this respect, Bernie has a lot more experience than she has.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
10. The problems is that when she has a formidable opponent
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:49 AM
Feb 2016

she unravels and her campaign shifts into unhinged mode. And it just sort of stays there while allowing psycho buffoons (like Penn and Brock) to steer the campaign into the ditch.

Didn't work in 2008. Failed strategy revamped and amped up in 2016.

Kitchen-sink mode doesn't work. It makes you look stupid and desperate.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
40. Exactly
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 02:37 PM
Feb 2016

This was supposed to be over as of Iowa, maybe even before them. They didn't craft a message or a theme other than "Qualified! Best woman for the job!"

Bagsgroove

(231 posts)
7. Hustle
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:39 AM
Feb 2016

Hillary could easily have been the nominee in 2008 except for one thing -- overconfidence. She was so sure at the start that she'd have it all wrapped up after Iowa and New Hampshire that she didn't set up the on-the-ground infrastructure to run a competitive campaign in the later states. By the time it became clear that Sen. Obama was going to pose a real, go-the-distance challenge, her campaign found that they didn't even really know the rules for lots of the later state contests (particularly the states with caucuses).

Meanwhile, thanks to the two Davids (Axelrod and Plouffe) Obama had been building on-the-ground organizations in all 50 states. Obama won the nomination because his organization out-hustled the Clinton machine.

Curious to think Sec. Clinton might be making the same mistake twice.



 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
17. Nice post. I'm reminded of Marx' observation that history repeats itself, the first
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:24 AM
Feb 2016

time as tragedy, the second time as farce (paraphrasing from somewhat rusty memory).

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
33. I think she is making the EXACT same mistake...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 12:02 PM
Feb 2016

Overconfidence from the start.

Up until a few weeks before Iowa, team Clinton wasn't taking Bernie seriously at all...they thought she had the nomination in the bag and were already looking forward to the GE. I'm sure a big assumption on their part was that they would have to spend very little during the primary and save up their war chest for the GE. They were not prepared at all for a long contentious primary. And now we are seeing evidence of that.

The fact that this is happening again, in very much the same way in happened in 2008, stuns me. Evidence of poor leadership and poor judgement.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
36. Thanks to Obama himself. He was the candidate to beat her. Let's not diminish him as a formidale
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 12:11 PM
Feb 2016

candidate by focusing on the "two Davids".

Obama was the better candidate by far.

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
12. Well, we know she's got a bigger war chest than Bernie, so it's not the money.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:03 AM
Feb 2016

Some of it does look to be, as you say, being this dumb, or more charitably, I suppose, this overconfident. And inexperienced in running a successful campaign against a serious challenger. (See my post #8.)

But also, I think I'd have to give some credit to Bernie possibly just actually having the stronger message, the stronger platform for these times.

Cassiopeia

(2,603 posts)
30. Bernie has been frugal while Clinton has been frivolous.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:34 AM
Feb 2016

She has run a campaign that she thought would be over last Tuesday. Instead, the people rallied behind Bernie and announced that we were just getting started.

Now she's in financial trouble and bleeding voters faster than she can collect money. That's why we saw DNC rule changes yesterday, but it's going to be far to little, far too late. Clinton just does not understand that she can't buy what she's missing.

bbgrunt

(5,281 posts)
34. nor can she muscle her way through the electorate with
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 12:05 PM
Feb 2016

a one-sided DNC and establishment power brokers.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
37. No, she doesn't have a bigger war chest.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 12:13 PM
Feb 2016

Clinton's burn rate has been enormous. Her campaign also gets most of its money from maxed-out donors. She can't go back to them for more.

You don't hold fundraisers in Mexico City and London when you've got plenty of cash.

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
39. These are the numbers I see...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 01:08 PM
Feb 2016

from

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

Hillary has raised $115M to Sanders' $75M

While you are correct that she has a high burn rate (and has spent more than Bernie has), she still has $38M cash on hand, compared to Bernie's $28M.

So at this point, lack of $ is not her problem.

That said, you are right, she has lots of maxed out donors which may make it harder for Hillary to continue to raise cash in the future as easily as Bernie might be able to. So that would explain the fundraisers in Mexico City and London.

(And now it looks like she may get a little more help from DWS, too... see
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511214438 )

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
13. If Sanders can win in either Nevada or especially South Carolina,
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:14 AM
Feb 2016

Hillary might as well fold up her tent and go home.

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
16. If the Inevitable candidate cannot get a single decisive victory...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:23 AM
Feb 2016

...out of the first four contests, that alone will be seen as one of the most historic political collapses, and will give Bernie that much more momentum going into Super Tuesday.

I hope Hillary's campaign doesn't degenerate into "vote for me to keep Bloomberg out of the race."

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
14. The Clinton campaign is operating out of at least 6 other cities in addition
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:17 AM
Feb 2016

to the 2 mentioned in the article with lots of events scheduled.

Not to worry, Clinton is well represented in SC ... contrary to your doom and gloom spin.

bread_and_roses

(6,335 posts)
15. Meanwhile, Fight for $15 active in SC
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:17 AM
Feb 2016
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-minimum-wage-deciding-factor-many-low-wage-voters

Fight For 15, a nationwide movement, has a similar protest planned outside the Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina, to coincide with the next GOP debate this Saturday.

"All these policians are chasing these votes across South Carolina and we’ll be right outside with more than 1,000 votes saying, if you want our vote, come get our vote," announced Kendall Fells, an organizer with Fight For 15. "We don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican ... you have to promise two things: $15 and a union."


If nothing else, Fight for $15 should give the incrementalists pause ... nothing else has changed the landscape so much in so short a time - and it's not "incremental." It's a bold demand that attacks the status quo in a significant and meaningful way.

Volaris

(10,272 posts)
18. And every time (EVERY TIME )
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:41 AM
Feb 2016

a min wage hike gets placed on a state ballot, Democratic candidates clean house.
Republicans know this. I don't expect a lot of them to show up.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
23. Actually, placing a minimum wage hike on a ballot
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:02 AM
Feb 2016

takes away a Democratic issue.

For example, Arkansas voters approved a minimum wage hike in 2014, but the state Democratic Party suffered its worst defeat since Reconstruction.

Skeeter Barnes

(994 posts)
20. $250k per hour is fine for Hillary and Bill. $600k per year is fine for Chelsea. $12 per hour
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:54 AM
Feb 2016

is fine for you and me.

DhhD

(4,695 posts)
26. $20.22 is a living wage for South Carolina.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:09 AM
Feb 2016
http://fusion.net/story/171317/15-an-hour-still-isnt-a-living-wage-in-every-single-state/
Scroll down to South Carolina.

Fighting for $15 is certainly justified. President Sanders has said that he believes in moving toward a living wage. $15 an hour is an honorable start. Clinton is way behind and continues in her no we can't attitude.

At the last debate her thesis was why try to work for real change. Clinton seems to be for the status quo.

Will Black Caucus Members be joining the SC marchers? Is Rep. J. Lewis helping to organize any marches, such as minimum wage marches in New York, for a living wage of $26.19 an hour; or $12 an hour in support of Hillary Clinton? $26.19 is the minimum living wage for the state of New York.

Depaysement

(1,835 posts)
28. Bernie's got this
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:16 AM
Feb 2016

It beats Hillary's Hope for 12.

Republican policy is work for whatever is offered and be thankful to God and your employer that you have any wage at all.

jalan48

(13,870 posts)
24. It seems as if Hillary thinks she can just buy the nomination.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:03 AM
Feb 2016

She has the connections on Wall Street and with the billionaire/millionaire class as well. Where are the thousands of enthusiastic supporters? Look at her rallies. Those supporters don't exist. She's thinking media ads, endorsements and Swift Boating attacks will be enough. I thought this was how Republican's ran campaigns.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
41. That's it. 2008 wasn't a fluke. She's a terrible campaigner.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 02:58 PM
Feb 2016

That's the only conclusion I can draw here.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»MSNBC: "Warning signs for...