Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you know how Hillary lost to Obama? She failed to "go negative" against him early on.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:05 PM
Original message
Do you know how Hillary lost to Obama? She failed to "go negative" against him early on.
It's well documented in the post-mortem analyses of her campaign.

So for all the people who doubt us "concern trolls", you do the math and ask Hillary how that strategy worked out for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think she did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Nope. Not according to the post-mortem analyses of her campaign.
She let him get out of the stables when she should have not allowed him to get out of the barn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. What "post mortem" analysis? Link? As I recall she went negative very early on.
Therefore, I'd like to see where you get this analysis and decide for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
68. Hillary lost because she voted for the IWR ...
end story ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Changenow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
67. thank you for your concern
the primary is over and we have a great nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Changenow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
69. Thank you for your concern
We have a nominee who is fantastic. The primary is over, turn on the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. She didn't?
So you're saying she should of started the plagiarism earlier, or the "hardworking whites" racism business earlier?

Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. So you're advocating the Obama campaign should use lies and racism.
Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don';t think I watched the same primaries as you did
Hillary went negative on Obama in November as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yep--she waited until December to really start smearing him, and by
then he had endeared himself to Iowa. Good point--Obama does need to go for the throat now, make "Republican" a dirty word, point out that McLoser/Pitbull are CLASSIC Republicans, keep up attacks on McLoser's temperament and judgment, make sure voters realize that McLoser doesn't give a shit about you and never did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Thank you, I didn't make this one up. Analysts think she fucked up by not going
hard on him in Iowa.

And what launched Obama?

Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. You're right--she was busy playing up her inevitability, and didn't even
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 01:17 PM by wienerdoggie
have a post-Super Tuesday plan, because she didn't think she'd need one. I think she thought that going after Obama too hard would have made him more credible and threatening as an opponent, and thus she took a chance on being dismissive of him instead. I also think she really believed that he couldn't win Iowa because he was black, and that Edwards would win Iowa (if she didn't). Not saying she's racist, but she knows political realities--and in some ways, she is right, he DOES have an uphill climb because of his race. But I think she just didn't plan for him winning that first contest, and that was her downfall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. You haven't posted a link yet to any "analyst" that supports your
position - you are making this up.

And you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. I don't think this post-mortem person is very smart. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
57. The least the OP could do is post a link and pretend.
I'd say the OP is good at pretending
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. I'd say you are acting like a stinker but here's just two links to get you started...
http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/npcu-blog/2008/6/10/why-did-hillary-lose-or-why-did-obama-win.html

and here....

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

sorry to burst your poor little childish bubble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. 60 posts in and you finally come up with links that you allege prove
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 07:31 PM by merh
"the analysts" believe what you believe?

Hardly

The first link http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/npcu-blog/2008/6/10/why-did-hillary-lose-or-why-did-obama-win.html appears to be a forum or blogs written by students of political communications. No professor or expert in communications writes that way.

The second link is discussing how the campaign had a meltdown and the failings were do to the poor management, the back biting and the inner strife and conflicts that went unresolved, not the failure to attack.

September 2008 Atlantic
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown.

(snip)

Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. It sweated the large themes (Clinton’s late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar champion had been the idea all along) and the small details (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I’d imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.


(P.S.: It is you that is a stinker, you don't post positions without sources and expect others to believe you and you provide the links when first asked, don't take hours to try to find what you think reads as you want.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. Or maybe that's why she lost Iowa.
The first and second place finishers in Iowa didn't go negative at all. Hillary, who did go negative, finished third. I think you're learning the wrong lessons from that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. That's how I saw it playing out...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. No, she mostly ignored him until it was too late, and then when she
DID go negative, it looked nasty and desperate (Muslim emails, kindergarten essays). When she started mocking him as all fluff and no substance, and calling him elitist, and attacking him on NAFTA, and playing up race--all after her string of losses in February-- she started winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. But you just wrote that she went negative in December
right before the Iowa caucus. Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Re-read what I wrote. If you wait too long to start defining your opponent
(in her case, less than four weeks before the voting started in Iowa), the negative attacks won't stick, they'll just look like desperation and flailing--her negative attacks on Obama in December were silly and haphazard. Her campaign was far better at putting together a credible negative campaign to define Obama by the time the TX and OH primaries rolled around. Obama will not get a chance for do-overs, the way Hillary did. He has done well so far, but he must become more aggressive, must start defining McLoon and Mooseburger in a way that makes them unacceptable, on a gut level, to the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Didn't Bill make his "risky choice" comment before NH?
That's pretty early in the process. And who started
circulating the "Muslim" e-mails? Didn't the HRC
campaign start that before even the Iowa caucuses?

I'd say she ran PLENTY NEGATIVE ... and it didn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagoexpat Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. & do u know how Obama lost to Hillary?
He followed her lead and went nuclear on her butt, just like the Clintons hoped he would?

And then drove all the Clinton supporters away...

oh, wait, Obama didn't lose to Hillary, did he?

He didn't "go negative" in March and April like y'all were wanting him to do -- he seemed to be a little smarter than you & wanted to get the Clinton voters to SUPPORT him, rather than HATE the Clintons

What an idiot Obama is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
80. Yeah, Obama had a Big Picture long range
plan:toast: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Um... in a primary, EARLY matters... since states aren't all voting at once...

All that matters is the national mood on the first tuesday of Novemeber..... not now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monomach Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. Are you high?
On something that fucks with your head more than pot, I mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh baloney.
Her campaign was passing the Muslim emails early on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/clinton-camp-admits-iowa-_n_75459.html

She went stealth ugly on him, having her surrogates repeat smears:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-surrogate-says-obama-is-really.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4056519

And he beat her anyway. Fair and square.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think spending all her money in Iowa and New Hampshire so she couldn't compete effectively
for 13 contest in a row and her chief advisor not understanding the nominating process was more of the issue but who am I to know :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. I am from Iowa
Hillarys campaign went way negative. And at the wrong time. There is nothing wrong with going negative, but it is time placement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Because she hired a GOP campaign stragetist who didn't understand "caucus"?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
19. Her campaign was not prepared for the caucuses
Among other things. Please stop trying to re-write history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I didn't rewrite it. I'm just going on what has been gleaned and dissected
from her her team's internal emails and messages.

I'm really suprised people haven't read up on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. She didn't plan well for the caucuses
I've read up on the emails. Her caucus losses were still a factor. I surprised you have haven't read up on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samuraiguppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
76. can you give a link or two?
I keep hearing stuff about the caucus but am not sure how to process it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
48. Give us something to read and we will. Otherwise you are giving a rather stupid opinion,
She DID go negative--and lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. It's not a "stupid opinion"....and here's one of the better articles on the topic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. The negatives she and BC resorted to are what hurt her
campaign - if she had kept the debate about the issues, she would have been seen as a viable candidate - she did not.

You can read some friggin weird shit all over the net - this analysis is part of that weird shit.

Folks are protecting Palin and by extension, McCain, because of the personal attacks - Obama is doing the right thing, he is staying on topic and discussing the issues that we face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. As I understood it she ran a traditional campaign concentrating on
specific states while Obama broke from that and had a grassroots one making him competitive in far more states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
58. bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. And we should give a shit, WHY???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. hmmm....what other "charismatic" candidate has just been introduced to the public?
referred to as a "rock star/rising star" who also manages to draw big crowds and inspire the base?

Yeah, I can't think of one either.... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. None.
There are a lot of repukes pretending that Palin is all that, but she isn't.

You'll see.

You're peeing your pants over nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
55. ted nuggent draws crowds
but that doesn't make him more talented than others or less of a perv.

Where is the link to your source on the analysts that hold your view?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
63. Hitler, right?
Am I right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. That is what history will show. But you are brave to say it now. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
25. Trying to stir up crap between Dems, are we?
Quit living in the past, and quit trying to divide Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. I don't think it's divisive to look back and see what worked and what didn't
for each candidate. I don't remember Hillary really punching Obama hard until December, and that was too late for Iowa. Had she opened up the "kitchen sink" on him in October or early November, and defined him earlier, he might not have won Iowa. The OP is just pointing out that you can't wait too long to define your opponent in a negative light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #30
64. Thank you, that is exactly what I'm saying and especially true when your opponent is a newcomer
and people haven't yet formed their opinions about them.

Everyone knows that "first impressions are lasting ones" however to suggest it here is all of a sudden heresy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
26. By the way, we haven't heard the worst yet from the mainstream Republican media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
27. She lost because her campaign didn't have a ground game for the caucus states.
Her campaign thought the primary fight would be over Feb. 5th.

Quit trying to rewrite history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
29. Disagree. She lost lots of Dem support when she went negative.
She had a lot broader Democratic support before her team went negative. She could have lost a lot more votes sooner by going negative early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
31. Her campaign tanked worse after going negative.
Obama wins by making his opponents self-implode, like Hillary did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Not true--her campaign succeeded when she slammed Obama from
every direction--and the Rev Wright tape helped her along. She won states even after Obama began looking like the certain winner math-wise, because she put enough doubt in people's minds about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Succeeded how? She lost.
She won some later states because Obama couldn't overcome the name recognition of one of the most well known figures and most popular last names in the Democratic Party. I'll admit that lying about her own record and Obama's record on trade did help her in Ohio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. She lost the race mathematically in February, but she won races
right up until the end afterwards--not because she was offering anything new, but because she focused full-time on tearing down her opponent. McCain has been focused full time on tearing down his opponent, too--he learned from Hillary's final months. The whole GOP convention offered nothing but tearing down Obama--and it gave them a bounce. Negativity works, people, but it has to be done right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
49. Thank you for pointing that out.
Not that the naysayers will accept it.

I believe the same will happen with McCain, which explains why our team is laying low while some here think he should be out there flailing his arms in attack mode.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. Ah. Go racist, sexist, and anti-gay early on, you're saying?
:eyes:

No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
36. How about we stop rehashing the primaries?
Don't we have enough on our plates to deal with during the General Election battle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
39. She just needed one more kitchen sink to throw!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
42. And Obama *won* how?

Umm... does it at all strike you as a bit odd to point out what a losing campaign "could have done different", than to look at what a winning campaign actually did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconicgnom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
46. Bullshit. She lost to Obama's POSITIVE campaign of HOPE and CHANGE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
47. Obama didn't go negative
and yet here he is at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
51. GIVE US A CITE. Thank you. (pardon the shouting) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. HERE YOU GO! I GOT IT ON A THING CALLED THE INTERNET!
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 06:23 PM by Bread and Circus
http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/npcu-blog/2008/6/10/why-did-hillary-lose-or-why-did-obama-win.html

and here....

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
56. Let's say you're right
What would you have the people on DU do about that?

What are we supposed to do about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
59. this is negligibly constructive bait n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
61. Hwaaa??
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 06:23 PM by msallied
She lost because she didn't represent the voice of CHANGE that Obama was promising. AND:

Her campaign didn't prepare for caucuses. Her campaign was broke. Her campaign was poorly managed from the get-go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
65. Not comparable. The voters were all Democrats.
Just sayin'

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
...of J.Temperance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
66. What the heck is a "concern troll"
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
70. Hillary lost because she was so busy triangulating over the past years to win the general election
that she alienated the base.

Hillary lost because there were too many people like me who LOVED "Classic Hillary" circa 1992 but lost interest in her as she moved to the right.

Plus, Hillary is so hated by Republicans that she would have motivated a huge turnout and was, as a result, not our strongest potential nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
...of J.Temperance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Utterly ridiculous, Hillary didn't "move to the right"
Centrism isn't "moving to the right"

IF the Democratic Party "moved to as left as some would like it" we'd NEVER win anything....the mainstream public are by nature Centrists, the Democratic Party is SENSIBLE to be a Centrist party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
72. If Bill & Hill had never gone negative on Obama, Hillary would have won the nomination.
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 06:56 PM by TexasObserver
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
73. She lost out of the gate. Then she went negative and kept losing.
I've heard that too, but she lost from the get go, mainly over Iraq is my recollection. In any case Obama kept it clean and swept up the primaries just like Kerry did. I don't see the value of going gutter at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
President_Obama Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
75. and you know how Obama won the Primary? he didn't go negative. He is not a Liar.
Don't ask him to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
77. Ummm.... not really. She lost because of her Iraq war vote and running the campaign ...
... using a general election strategy, as though she'd already won the primary. Had she gone negative sooner, it is equally likely that it would have backfired. (e.g. she couldn't have been portrayed as the victim prior to New Hampshire, and then might have lost BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Agreed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
79. It was IWR.
That's the reason I could never support or forgive her. Plus, after her cowardly mention of RFK's assassination and then hiding behind Ted's brain cancer when she got a negative reaction, I don't even want her in the Senate anymore. Let her go to Bosnia and duck some more of that sniper fire she claims to have been subjected to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
81. The only time
Hillary won a race she was not fully expected to win was New Hampshire. In general, and with few exceptions, she fared worse than expected most everywhere. Negativity did not help Hillary win West Virginia. It was not a useful tool at any point in her campaign. Bottom line, she spent over 30 million dollars attempting to take Obama out in Iowa, and she came in third. She should have understood that it was over right then and there.

Obama was already moving staff and resources to the national contest by the time Hillary started winning contests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC