05-08-2019, 11:38 AM
(05-08-2019, 08:15 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't believe that.
In the 50s or 60s, I could buy the whole "you need to campaign somewhere to get those people's votes." Because, back then, you only really heard small tidbits of policy speak from candidates on the nightly news. So knowing what a candidate thought required actually going to listen to them speak.
Nowadays, the internet exists. And you can check what Hillary wanted to do on her website. Or on the news websites. Or by going to Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram. Or almost anywhere else.
Going to rallies to listen to a candidate is not something I've ever heard any of my friends even mention as a possibility, let alone something they look forward to.
What Hillary did wrong was being so incredibly unrelatable that she lost millennial enthusiasm despite facing down the worst serious candidate for American President that the nation had ever seen. It was the preferential treatment (and arguably, cheating) the DNC gave to her that alienated a base that, had Bernie just lost fairly, would not have defied the DNC to the degree that they did. It was the fact that her entire strategy was based around "yea, I know I'm pretty insufferable, but look at my opponent!"
I don't know for sure, but I have my doubts that, after all that, just going to Michigan and Wisconsin and talking would have helped her at all.
Was the DNC responsible for Hillary not focusing on the economy as much as she should have? No, that was her mistake.
As far as campaigning in key states, you're not going to convince me that in a race in which she won the popular vote, but lost key states where she chose not focus her time, effort, and money didn't play a roll in her loss.
