It was a campaign that spent unwisely and did not put the candidate in front of the crowds where she needed to be when she need to be there.
The two factors that the people running it should have foreseen, and that many did was that Trump has a high entertainment value, which equals eyeballs which equals money and that the Electoral College, not the public vote elects the President and thus should be the focus of where time and money is spent. There were key places where Trump spoke to crowds and Secretary Clinton did not, and there were issues near and dear to our Democratic Party base that were, and are, anathema to people in areas that needed to be won.
Spending more money for fewer electoral votes against an inexperienced, reprehensible blowhard with a massive record of lies and shocking statements is not worthy of emulation or admiration but instead of the most searching and brutal of post-mortem regardless of how unhappy anyone is or the insult they take from the results.
If I hear one more idiot whine about the Electoral College it will be one too many; if our candidate wins by 10 million votes in 2020 and gets 268 EC votes it's 'hello second term', and if we have a candidate that goes into areas where coal has been mined for generations, and people own and cherish guns and talk about how we've got to move beyond such things (no to argue about coal or guns but to give an example of how not to win hearts and minds) we'll be lucky to get even that. The EC is never going away, Russia and other nations are damned well going to try to mess with our elections next time and the Media is going to cover Herr Drumpf's each and every tweet, the omore outrageous the more coverage; if we want to win then those factors are the sort of thing that will need to be paid attention to, not merely that OUR candidate is highly competent and theirs is an ignorant buffoon.
There have been all kinds of excuses made over why Secretary Clinton, the best, most experienced, and qualified candidate since 1980 that we have run lost to a pussy grabbing doofus, every damned excuse except bad staff work, poor analytics and not getting the candidate speaking more and more often than the opposition.
Personally - when you outspend a blithering idiot of a man-child, don't get live in front of the people in crucial battleground districts, fail to greedily and systematically absorb to the greatest degree possible the supporters of your primary opponent and don't respond to attacks in a timeframe measured in seconds or minutes, that constitutes a 'genuinely shitty campaign'. Just my opinion and worth everything you paid for it.
cheers
= new reply since forum marked as read
?cb=1374424863
