3 ms·

That's not a revelation either. The ad[1] is a series of remarks made by HRC ostensibly denigrating multiple groups, and each remark is labeled with its target

That's not a revelation either. The ad[1] is a series of remarks made by HRC ostensibly denigrating multiple groups, and each remark is labeled with its target: "African-American youth", "millenial voters" [this one was about Bernie supporters], and "Trump voters". It seems pretty obvious to me (and anyone who saw it?) that an ad like this would be targeted towards the blocs that it's about, which would include black voters and young Bernie supporters, to prevent them from voting Hillary. [1] https://www.politico.com/video/2016/10/trump-campaign-releases-anti-clinton-predators-ad-060992 https://www.politico.com/video/2016/10/trump-campaign-releas...

ceejayoz 6y ago
The parent comment said "it seems that simply selecting 'Democrats' for deterrence explains the outcome". The article makes it clear that's not the case.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Yes you're right, your comment was clearly in reference to this narrow claim. I didn't intend my comment as a rebuttal to yours, but a bit of a tangent: it's clear that the campaign targeted black voters (presumably among other groups), but it's not clear what's extraordinary or abusive about this. Turnout for oneself and one's opponent is a well-known target of campaign strategy, and I'm not aware of any norm against it. Nor do I think there should be one: it's an entirely legitimate choice to withhold one's vote from either candidate, and this ad simply contained remarks of Clinton's that a black (or Bernie) voter could decide makes her a poor fit for their vote even if they think Trump is too.
- tome 6y ago
  To be clear, I meant the statistical outcome specifically. That's why I stated "The charge seems to be that the proportion of black voters chosen for "deterrence" is about twice as large as proportion of black voters in the general population". Admittedly it would have been better to have written "One of the charges seems to be ..." and I have edited my original post to do so.

ceejayoz 6y ago

The parent comment said "it seems that simply selecting 'Democrats' for deterrence explains the outcome". The article makes it clear that's not the case.

wutbrodo 6y ago
Yes you're right, your comment was clearly in reference to this narrow claim. I didn't intend my comment as a rebuttal to yours, but a bit of a tangent: it's clear that the campaign targeted black voters (presumably among other groups), but it's not clear what's extraordinary or abusive about this. Turnout for oneself and one's opponent is a well-known target of campaign strategy, and I'm not aware of any norm against it. Nor do I think there should be one: it's an entirely legitimate choice to withhold one's vote from either candidate, and this ad simply contained remarks of Clinton's that a black (or Bernie) voter could decide makes her a poor fit for their vote even if they think Trump is too.
tome 6y ago
To be clear, I meant the statistical outcome specifically. That's why I stated "The charge seems to be that the proportion of black voters chosen for "deterrence" is about twice as large as proportion of black voters in the general population". Admittedly it would have been better to have written "One of the charges seems to be ..." and I have edited my original post to do so.