General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton's Grassroots Campaign?
Very early in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton is taking a relatively unusual approach for someone who is the current polling leader in the Democratic primary race. She's eschewing extensive media exposure and is, instead, focusing on small meetings with a variety of constituents. Starting in Iowa, she's working on presenting herself as a one-on-one candidate.
No doubt this will not continue for very long, but it's an interesting way for her to get started. No huge campaign rallies or TV talk show appearances. Just sitting down with folks and sharing ideas. The media's covering this, because they have to, really, and her little gatherings are making the major network news programming. Cable news? Well, not so much, but the three major evening news programs still capture far more viewers than all of the cable news programming combined. Lots of people forget that, it seems.
So, is this her strategy? Will she continue this grassroots-looking campaign? I don't know. Today, she named an adviser with strong links in the Hispanic community, where she will no doubt do pretty well. She's polling well in the black community already, and we can expect her to make appearances to that audience as well.
Of course, Bernie Sanders, currently her only declared opponent, is going full-on grassroots in his bid. That may be how he campaigns throughout, unless he can raise more money that he has so far. Others will be joining the primary race soon, too.
So, how long can Hillary Clinton continue to approach this on such a small scale? I'm not sure, but it's an interesting start. It lets her avoid the big issues for now, and cast herself as the small business, middle class candidate. She'll have to address the big issues, of course, but she can probably extend this low-key campaigning for some time.
Looks like she has learned something from 2008. We'll see how far that goes.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Yes, indeed.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)small business middle class my ass.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Who knows. People might buy it. Campaigns are funny.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Presidential campaigns are billion dollar things. All of those contributors donate to both sides. Presidential campaigns are hedge funds, and those donors are used to hedge funds.
The next President will have similar donors.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)The only thing that I feel more strongly about than removing money from politics is how hurtful it would be those who depend on to unilaterally disarm (stop taking money) and consequently lose elections.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)And only those. I'd be happy to be taxed to pay for them, but I'd expect them to be on a much smaller scale. Make the news media cover campaigns instead of relying on advertising dollars. I seem to remember them doing that decades ago.
It's just a dream, though. What it would take to change how we do things isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Answer beauty pageants.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Most of Hillary's money comes from individuals, and most of Bernie's comes from PACs.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Looking at the two states involved, though, it makes some sense.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)'Corporations are people, my friend'
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)corporations. Look closely at the chart. That's clear.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)<snip>
Sanders campaign finance reports reflect his emphasis on small donations. Contributions of $200 accounted for 61 percent of his fundraising between 2009 and 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (By way of comparison, Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls small-donor base was about 43 percent of his fundraising total in the same time period. Paul has similarly emphasized grassroots support and is likely to announce his presidential bid in a few days.)
<snip>
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-03-26/bernie-sanders-hates-money-in-politics-the-very-thing-he-ll-need-to-beat-clinton
The vast majority of HRC's political donations come and have always come from big money bundlers at places like Citibank.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Maybe the chart is wrong, in which case you should take it up with NYC_SKP. But the chart pretty clearly shows that most of Hillary's contributions fall under the "individuals" column, and most of Bernie's fall under the "PACs" column.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Twisted logic being what it is, and Citizens United.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Almost all of the money in the Clinton chart is in the individuals column, meaning it came from individuals employed at those companies.
I know, I'm killing a perfectly good moment of Hillary-hate with my silly facts...
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Plus total number of donations and average donation amount.....
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Nothing on the current election cycle
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I try to fight BS with facts.
brooklynite
(93,871 posts)Interesting.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Also has a Corvette and an SUV.
Likes Hillary, I reckon.
Go figure.
brooklynite
(93,871 posts)She likes Elizabeth Warren.
Go figure.
(nb - my wife)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)It's absolutely not a winning message. The rich aren't the enemy, rich conservatives are. I know plenty of rich liberals fighting for great causes, by demonizing wealth you're basically telling everyone "we'll keep you poor because being rich is awful". If you think that's a winning message then go for it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I know an Individual on Medi Cal (that's the CA Medicaid program for individuals below the poverty line)
ME
He/Me is voting for Hillary.
In Los Angeles it will be the people in South and East L A voting overwhelmingly for Hillary and the people in West L A , not so overwhelmingly voting for Bernie, if he's still viable come the CA primary.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)The few "common folk" that she meets with are probably not just random people sitting in a restaurant. They've been selected, vetted, and will come up with the same tough questions that Chelsea might ask. Or repeat the questions they've rehearsed.
For now, it's all show-biz.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Presidential campaigns are strategic things. My post isn't an endorsement. It's a comment on what appears to be the case. Funny that so many people see it differently.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)screened.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I appreciate your optimism and positivity!
The first couple primaries are about one-on-one retail. Meeting the candidate.
Hillary is doing it just the way she is supposed to do it!
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)soon. I don't have the details. The turnout for that will be interesting to measure, I think, even this early.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dropped the ball, state to state. that is cause us some problems we need to address
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)One thing that seems to be forgotten is that local news programming in each state covers candidate visits extensively. And more people watch local TV news than any other type of news programming.
Whatever candidate comes to town, the local news team will be there to cover it. But, unless you live in that state, you won't see that coverage. Lots of things are in play that don't get discussed on DU very much.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I've done some fairly extensive on-the-ground work for several cycles of Democratic primaries in NH, and I think Iowa is the same. These voters expect a lot of one on one. They expect you to show up and shake hands with them at the local town shoe store, to come to the VFW pancake breakfast, to hold a town hall in their tiny town.
She doesn't need large-scale media attention because she's already been in the spotlight. She doesn't need the name recognition. And frankly, the media isn't all that friendly. She has little to gain that way and more to lose.
She's got to go bottom-up, not top-down this time, and it looks as if she has good advisors this time around making that assessment.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)As I said, it looks like she learned something from 2008. She's hired a bunch of experienced advisers, too. I think her campaign will look different from the one she ran in 2008.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)the Primary....Wins...Tacks Right?
JEB
(4,748 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Willing to do ground work. Her poll numbers show she has backing.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)and I believe I read that she's interested in using his 50 state strategy and intends to build up local and state Democratic parties.
Indeed, if the 50-state organizing effort is meant to accomplish anything, it's certainly not in securing Clinton's win in Connecticut.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/forget-the-50-state-plan-clinton-s-building-for-a-battleground-strategy-20150514