4 ms·

Regardless of the election, the fact that stories like: "Obama Signs Executive Order Banning The Pledge Of Allegience In Schools Nationwide" This got 2,177,00

Regardless of the election, the fact that stories like: "Obama Signs Executive Order Banning The Pledge Of Allegience In Schools Nationwide" This got 2,177,000 shares on Facebook. These are the issue. I'm of the mind that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lackluster candidate who didn't address blue collar issues properly, thinking that anti-poverty and welfare programs would be equivalent. But just because the Democrats are sounding the alarm for reasons you find partisan, doesn't mean the problem goes away. Fake news is the social web's version of fwd: fwd: fwd:, and we've always known that was hugely problematic. Well, now it's gone viral on a global scale. We can't ignore that.

specialist 10y ago
"...Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lackluster candidate who didn't address blue collar issues properly, thinking that anti-poverty and welfare programs would be equivalent." This is mostly correct. HRC didn't win enough. Democratic candidates have to also overcome structural flaws in our system. HRC didn't inspire like Obama and Bernie did. IMHO, her biggest mistake was getting into the gutter with Trump with all the negative attacks. Obama didn't do that. Voters are sick of it, so those Obama voters simply stayed home. But she's a Clinton. The War Room & triangulation strategies that worked so well before failed her in 2008 primary and 2016 general. Too bad she didn't learn from Obama's campaign successes.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  all the negative attacks. Obama didn't do that. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/23/obama-wins-attack-ad-battle-online/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/23/obama-wins-attack-a... "Did Obama run the most negative ads in us history?" (Probably not, but he ran a lot of them. The article goes into detail on numbers) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-run-the-most-negative-ads-in-us-history/2012/02/01/gIQAYUkriQ_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-o... The reality is, negative ads work, so politicians will continue to use them.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Thanks for the links. "Negative ads have been a hallmark of presidential campaigns for decades, because polls show they work. But conservative strategist Frank Luntz, president and CEO of Luntz Global, LLC, has conducted various focus groups on the effectiveness of political ads, and says this latest batch is different in one key way. "It's one thing to be negative," he observes. "It's another thing to demonize your opponent."" Me quoting Frank Luntz, of all people. Luntz is closer to the mark. The demonization of each other during 2016 was stomach turning. McCain and Obama never did that, that I recall. (Their surrogates certainly did, of course.) McCain even batted down the birthism crap and defended Obama's patriotism.

specialist 10y ago

"...Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lackluster candidate who didn't address blue collar issues properly, thinking that anti-poverty and welfare programs would be equivalent." This is mostly correct. HRC didn't win enough. Democratic candidates have to also overcome structural flaws in our system. HRC didn't inspire like Obama and Bernie did. IMHO, her biggest mistake was getting into the gutter with Trump with all the negative attacks. Obama didn't do that. Voters are sick of it, so those Obama voters simply stayed home. But she's a Clinton. The War Room & triangulation strategies that worked so well before failed her in 2008 primary and 2016 general. Too bad she didn't learn from Obama's campaign successes.

ktRolster 10y ago
all the negative attacks. Obama didn't do that. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/23/obama-wins-attack-ad-battle-online/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/23/obama-wins-attack-a... "Did Obama run the most negative ads in us history?" (Probably not, but he ran a lot of them. The article goes into detail on numbers) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-run-the-most-negative-ads-in-us-history/2012/02/01/gIQAYUkriQ_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-o... The reality is, negative ads work, so politicians will continue to use them.
- specialist 10y ago
  Thanks for the links. "Negative ads have been a hallmark of presidential campaigns for decades, because polls show they work. But conservative strategist Frank Luntz, president and CEO of Luntz Global, LLC, has conducted various focus groups on the effectiveness of political ads, and says this latest batch is different in one key way. "It's one thing to be negative," he observes. "It's another thing to demonize your opponent."" Me quoting Frank Luntz, of all people. Luntz is closer to the mark. The demonization of each other during 2016 was stomach turning. McCain and Obama never did that, that I recall. (Their surrogates certainly did, of course.) McCain even batted down the birthism crap and defended Obama's patriotism.