2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMSNBC: "Warning signs for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warning-signs-hillary-clinton-south-carolinaThe 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 thats 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 Clintons 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 Bernies support, said State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter...Theyve 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 thats 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 hasnt happened, and sources close to the campaign say its not for lack of outreach from the national campaign.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)to be done.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)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.
mucifer
(23,548 posts)The Illinois campaign kickoff event is at 10am more info:
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/4cxs
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Damn, I wish I could, but I have clients then.
Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #5)
xloadiex This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)to run a campaign and Hillary doesn't. Again.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)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)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.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)It was supposed to be a coronation.
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)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)time as tragedy, the second time as farce (paraphrasing from somewhat rusty memory).
Ligyron
(7,633 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She took it for granted and did not think she needed to do anything
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)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)candidate by focusing on the "two Davids".
Obama was the better candidate by far.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)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)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)a one-sided DNC and establishment power brokers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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)Hillary might as well fold up her tent and go home.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...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)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)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 well 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)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)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)is fine for you and me.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)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)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.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Is that what she is relying on?
Omaha Steve
(99,658 posts)jalan48
(13,870 posts)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.
406-Boz
(53 posts)Bingo!
RATM435
(392 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's the only conclusion I can draw here.