7 ms·

Actually I think that quoted part is bogus. Hillary won a very contested and bitterly fought primary despite NOT being the favorite (among Democrats) by a large

Actually I think that quoted part is bogus. Hillary won a very contested and bitterly fought primary despite NOT being the favorite (among Democrats) by a large margin or having a clearly articulated platform. Big data seems to have worked very well there! She just found herself up against an even more data driven campaign.

specialist 8y ago
No one in the history of USA Presidential campaigns has ever had a larger, more detailed platform than HRC. That's kinda what she's known for. The more correct criticism, which she admits to, is her inability to be less wonkish and more arm wavey (visionary). The correct criticism, which no one will admit to, is the futility of trying to explain oneself thru a medium purpose built to sabotage rational discourse.
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  Additionally, she was the clear favourite right from the start. It’s not true that it was a more tightly contested primary than usual, although Sanders gave her a surprisingly good run for sure. Clinton vs Sanders was much more one-sided than Obama vs Clinton, say.
  - specialist 8y ago
    re Obama vs Clinton and how it relates to Patrick Cockburn's article... One can be right about everything and yet still ultimately be wrong. Because not everything can be measured. Because it's easy to miss important details, angles, insights. Because rock, paper, scissors. For the 2008 primary, Clinton and Obama were playing different games, popularity vs delegate counts, so used different strategies. Obama novel strategy won. And FWIW, HRC's 2016 campaign knew the electoral college would be close, were doing pretty well, but then Comey threw the election to the Russians. Anticipating all the butthurt downvoters: Comey has all but admitted as much.
    - dang 8y ago
      Would you please not take HN threads into partisan flamewars? That's the opposite of what we want here, regardless of how right you are. I appreciate that you haven't been using HN primarily for this (other than today), but still, it damages this place, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - garmaine 8y ago
        What was partisan in the comment you are replying to? Looks like standard (and on-topic) political science reasoning not politicking to me. Edit: did you mean to respond to specialist’s other comment in this thread?
        dang 8y ago
        That was in reply to multiple political flamewar posts, but the Comey bit here obviously qualifies. Also, "butthurt downvoters"? that's embarrassing.
        garmaine 8y ago
        Fair enough. The last line did dirty it a bit.
      - specialist 8y ago
        You're right. Thank you for keeping me in line. I'm a repeat offender. My immediate solution is to not login, so less tempted to engage. If I feel the need to continue participating, I use a real-name account, which usually keeps me from trolling. Back when I was moderator, we had offline mail readers. I miss two features. Time shifting and twit filters. I really want to read the threads a week later, after the commentariat has a chance to weigh in. That's also how I consume my "news". Keeps things "cool" (vs "hot" a la Marshall McLuhan). And I really miss having twit filters, which allowed you to fully block mail from marked accounts. I scanned the various 3rd party HN clients, but nothing like this jumped out. Not that I have enough to do, but maybe I can morph an existing client. Again, thank you for your efforts.
- garmaine 8y ago
  The phrase I said was “clearly articulated platform.” I don’t think you and I are in disagreement.
mamon 8y ago
She was the worst possible candidate of Democrats. Maybe even some time in future we'll learn that Russians helped her win that primary in order to give Trump easiest opponent to beat :)
- specialist 8y ago
  I seriously doubt Putin, who famously despises HRC, would help her win anything. But since you brought it up... HRC helped Trump win the GOP nomination. Mostly because Rubio, the favorite, would have crushed HRC in the general. (And because why not monkey wrench the other side's primary?) In a weird way, I think we're lucky Trump won and not Rubio. The backlash against Trump is akin to a tidal wave, a sea change. Whereas Rubio would have been less motivating than say GWB & Cheney, so the GOP would probably hold onto power for longer. Doubly so because Rubio would have had the legitimacy of a clear victory, whereas no one to the left of Steven Bannon considers Trump legitimate.

specialist 8y ago

No one in the history of USA Presidential campaigns has ever had a larger, more detailed platform than HRC. That's kinda what she's known for. The more correct criticism, which she admits to, is her inability to be less wonkish and more arm wavey (visionary). The correct criticism, which no one will admit to, is the futility of trying to explain oneself thru a medium purpose built to sabotage rational discourse.

iainmerrick 8y ago
Additionally, she was the clear favourite right from the start. It’s not true that it was a more tightly contested primary than usual, although Sanders gave her a surprisingly good run for sure. Clinton vs Sanders was much more one-sided than Obama vs Clinton, say.
- specialist 8y ago
  re Obama vs Clinton and how it relates to Patrick Cockburn's article... One can be right about everything and yet still ultimately be wrong. Because not everything can be measured. Because it's easy to miss important details, angles, insights. Because rock, paper, scissors. For the 2008 primary, Clinton and Obama were playing different games, popularity vs delegate counts, so used different strategies. Obama novel strategy won. And FWIW, HRC's 2016 campaign knew the electoral college would be close, were doing pretty well, but then Comey threw the election to the Russians. Anticipating all the butthurt downvoters: Comey has all but admitted as much.
  - dang 8y ago
    Would you please not take HN threads into partisan flamewars? That's the opposite of what we want here, regardless of how right you are. I appreciate that you haven't been using HN primarily for this (other than today), but still, it damages this place, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - garmaine 8y ago
      What was partisan in the comment you are replying to? Looks like standard (and on-topic) political science reasoning not politicking to me. Edit: did you mean to respond to specialist’s other comment in this thread?
      - dang 8y ago
        That was in reply to multiple political flamewar posts, but the Comey bit here obviously qualifies. Also, "butthurt downvoters"? that's embarrassing.
        garmaine 8y ago
        Fair enough. The last line did dirty it a bit.
    - specialist 8y ago
      You're right. Thank you for keeping me in line. I'm a repeat offender. My immediate solution is to not login, so less tempted to engage. If I feel the need to continue participating, I use a real-name account, which usually keeps me from trolling. Back when I was moderator, we had offline mail readers. I miss two features. Time shifting and twit filters. I really want to read the threads a week later, after the commentariat has a chance to weigh in. That's also how I consume my "news". Keeps things "cool" (vs "hot" a la Marshall McLuhan). And I really miss having twit filters, which allowed you to fully block mail from marked accounts. I scanned the various 3rd party HN clients, but nothing like this jumped out. Not that I have enough to do, but maybe I can morph an existing client. Again, thank you for your efforts.
garmaine 8y ago
The phrase I said was “clearly articulated platform.” I don’t think you and I are in disagreement.

mamon 8y ago

She was the worst possible candidate of Democrats. Maybe even some time in future we'll learn that Russians helped her win that primary in order to give Trump easiest opponent to beat :)

specialist 8y ago
I seriously doubt Putin, who famously despises HRC, would help her win anything. But since you brought it up... HRC helped Trump win the GOP nomination. Mostly because Rubio, the favorite, would have crushed HRC in the general. (And because why not monkey wrench the other side's primary?) In a weird way, I think we're lucky Trump won and not Rubio. The backlash against Trump is akin to a tidal wave, a sea change. Whereas Rubio would have been less motivating than say GWB & Cheney, so the GOP would probably hold onto power for longer. Doubly so because Rubio would have had the legitimacy of a clear victory, whereas no one to the left of Steven Bannon considers Trump legitimate.