2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYes, the Democrats had an economic message. No, they didn't forget the middle and working class.
It's worth saying again in the face of the array of post-November 8th claims that the Democrats simply had no economic message and didn't acknowledge the anguish of the American worker.
Here are a few links to what actually got out and, in some cases, covered, but please feel free to add others.
First, coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign from almost a year back:
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/08/clinton-proposes-new-manufacturing-incentives-crackdown-on-corporate-inversions/?utm_term=.227b269eaec2[/url]
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is adding to her package of economic revitalization plans this week with new tax incentives aimed at boosting American manufacturing and penalties for businesses that try to avoid taxes through offshore mergers.
Clinton was outlining her manufacturing proposal on Tuesday in New Hampshire, and will discuss ways to discourage so-called corporate inversions during stops on Wednesday in Iowa. Those two states hold the first 2016 presidential selection contests in February.
Both plans are part of a detailed set of proposals intended to improve the bottom line for the middle class, whose declining fortunes Clinton has made the organizing principle of her second run for the White House.
So we've gone from "organizing principle" to the claim that HRC did nothing at all.
Second, Hillary Clinton's comments on the coal industry, which were lifted out of context and mischaracterized as an attack on the miners when in fact her focus was on addressing their long-term economic prospects. And she didn't stop with concerns in coal country, either.
[url]http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/13/full-rush-transcript-hillary-clinton-partcnn-tv-one-democratic-presidential-town-hall/[/url]
Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities. So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on. So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history. Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope. So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.
The 2016 Democratic platform addressed economic and specifically infrastructure concerns in multiple parts of the country, including rural areas. And there are proposals concerning poverty, including the problem of hunger.
[url]https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf[/url]
Democrats will spur investment to power the rural economy. We support strengthening rural
water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure to make rural businesses more competitive. We will
expand access to equity capital for businesses and expand the New Markets Tax Credit to better
serve rural small businesses. We will promote collaborative stewardship of our natural resources,
while developing clean fuels that will grow our economy, lower our energy bills, combat climate
change, and make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. We will provide
assistance to producers who conserve and improve natural resources on their farms and double
loan guarantees that support the bio-based economys dynamic growth.
We reaffirm our commitment to eliminate poverty. Democrats will develop a national strategy,
coordinated across all levels of government, to combat poverty. We will direct more federal
resources to lifting up communities that have been left out and left behind, such as the 10-20-30
model, which directs 10 percent of program funds to communities where at least 20 percent of
the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years or more. We will also focus on
communities that suffer from persistent poverty, including empowerment zones and areas that
targeted government data indicate are in persistent poverty.
In the richest country in the world, no one, especially our children, should go hungry. This is
why Democrats will protect proven programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)our nation's most important anti-hunger programthat help struggling
families put food on the table. We will also help people grow their skills through jobs and skills
training opportunities. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program should be expanded for
low-wage workers not raising children, including extending the credit to young workers starting
at age 21. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) should be expanded, for example, by making more of it
refundable, or indexed to inflation to stem the erosion of the credit.
As for the House Democrats, they've had a focus on wages, manufacturing, and other grass-roots economic concerns for years.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-democrats-re-launch-make-it-in-america-manufacturing-jobs-agenda/2011/05/04/AFy0ylqF_blog.html?utm_term=.bd37ff732e05[/url]
At a Capitol news conference, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the programs architect, joined with more than a dozen members of the House Democratic caucus to announce the agenda, which includes more than 30 pieces of legislation or legislative agenda items.
Our premise is that America has been and continues to be the land of opportunity, Hoyer said Wednesday. Americans psychologically are saying, Were not on the right track. Were not doing what we ought to be doing. And we want to make sure that, as their forebears who came to America and thought that they could make it in America, they too can make it in America, and their families can make it in America.
The way to do that, Hoyer continued, is to create an environment and policies that encourage and realize that we make it products, agricultural products as well that we make goods in America.
The plan is comprised of several items many of which have been previously promoted by House Democrats including the creation of a national infrastructure development bank; reform of the corporate tax code; an expansion of the research and development tax credit; and patent and currency reform.
Of course the House was then controlled by the Republicans, so none of that was going to move. But to say there was no focus on economic issues affecting the middle and working class is to rewrite history.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and yes, mr and mrs contrarian who disagrees.., maybe it all could have been "simpler" but it was there...
Maybe HRC needed to lie like hell all year.
cry baby
(6,784 posts)It wasn't heard by people who needed to hear it. The message wasn't covered because the news, nationally and locally, went down the trump black hole.
People in the Midwest that we needed to reach have no idea who Steny Hoyer is and they damn sure don't read the party platform.
We had a great message, but we were drowned out by the tweeter in chief.
Cobalt Violet
(9,923 posts)She could've done a lot better at getting her message out herself.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)She had a number of ads that weren't about Trump, including ads about the economy/jobs.
Far too many on DU have bought into false narratives. That probably has a lot to do with just how awful the media is: www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-cruel-crooked-caricature-doomed-clinton-520125.
Cobalt Violet
(9,923 posts)This isn't based on anything I read on DU or anywhere. I'm in a TV swing state market. I heard it myself. Her ads were very weak on issues. Nobody I know knew that she wanted to lower the medicare age to 50. Not one person.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Such as this one: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/760847322922090496.
And at least one of her ads about Trump had to do with his company shipping jobs overseas, the very issue he supposedly won on. Major proponents of the TPP won their elections easily, including Rust Belt candidates, so there's a flaw in the anti-trade narrative. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632931
As the OP makes clear, these narratives are false. Now, perhaps Clinton's TV spots could have been more effective (it's also debatable how much impact TV spots have), but that's a different argument than the one about how she didn't have an economic message.
mythology
(9,527 posts)I think you're arguing against something not being contended. I also remember a lot of her ads, particularly at the close of the election being about how bad Trump is.
Between June 8th and the end of September, 60% of Clinton's ads were negative.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article104724056.html
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)"Her ads didn't help since they were all about what Trump said."
And that's what I was responding to.
iluvtennis
(20,963 posts)...that's why the politicians go with the personal attack commercials - they sell. I'm a data won, and the more data points I get, the happier I am so I can munge on it and make my own conclusions. But unfortunately many folks aren't critical thinkers and only want the catchy buzz word phrases....that's what Don the Con ran on - catch phrases...he had not detailed platform whatsoever. MOO.
treestar
(82,383 posts)going on about how boring Hillary was had she stuck to policy.
radical noodle
(8,859 posts)I mentioned at the time that she was running positive as well as negative ads.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We spent way too much time on personality issues. The presidential election was reduced to a family feud.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)I place major responsibility for this fiasco on the so called media and have divorced myself from their propaganda since the election. I will tune in again only if an honest, objective media surfaces......not likely as the "news" media has been taken over for corporate profit. I witnessed the wall to wall coverage of every bit of Trump idiocy for ratings at the expense of any intellectual discussion of issues.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...it seems disagreement over that narrative has caused a reactionary response that conflates valid and invalid arguments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632931.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)Show me the ad she was running in the last 8 weeks that pushed these issues? Because I was in a "battle ground" state and all I saw was "he's worse than me" ads.
Show me where she went into a blue collar dominated state and addressed their concerns about NAFTA and the TPP, much less the WTO, in the last 8 weeks. Because Michigan dems were worried and couldn't get her to show up almost at all.
The blue collar has been hearing her kinds of messages since the 1990's, and where they are now is without pensions, and making a 1/3 of what they were, or at least wage stagnation. Their health insurance gets more expensive every year, even after all of her and Obama's "successes".
They didn't have the message that Trump had (which was based upon a lot of crap) and they made no attempt to do anything about it. They just kept running ads of him saying stupid things.
There was a candidate though that was ready to take him on about those issues, but apparently he wasn't as good as her.
FBaggins
(27,835 posts)What matters is what they focused on AND what people "heard" (which, of course, relies on them as well).
Here in NC, the airwaves were flooded with advertisements... thought I heard hardly any from Trump's side. I remember very few that didn't boil down to "look at how offensive this nutjob is! Why would you want him as President?"
ms liberty
(9,894 posts)The what will the children think ad was one of those that ran all the time, but it wasn't the only one. I'm in a rural area that is in the Charlotte media market.
Cobalt Violet
(9,923 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But at the time, it made sense. Nobody is more unfit.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Yes, she had a plan.
What was her message? A message has to be designed that even the most complex plan can be explained in a few words. If it takes more than one sentence to explain it, then the message is severely flawed.
andym
(5,743 posts)I remember hearing this with regards to pretty much everything, but especially her platform. The platform was de-emphsized. Americans want their politics reduced to few pithy sayings, which is tragic but inescapable. Her team picked a theme for this campaign, it was unity-- a good theme, but not as good as hope and change.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)A genius can can take the most complex issue and boil it down to a few words.
No politician is as smart as Einstein, but no politician is trying to explain the universe. But as an easy example, Einstein took the most complex issue in physics and boiled it down to an equation about 1 inch long when hand written. It was so beautiful that a moron in physics like me understands the relationship between time and space.
mythology
(9,527 posts)But then I look at Trump's make America great again and his complete lack of plans or curiosity about issues.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)We're going to bring jobs back
We're going to stop outsourcing.
That's a message without a plan to back it up.
Hillary had a plan with no message.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Because Clinton's economic message sure was loud and clear to anyone paying attention.
Whereas Trump made meaningless remarks such as "We're looking at jobs--big league jobs." That might fly with people who are already inclined to vote for Trump, but some have higher expectations.
treestar
(82,383 posts)covering the Orange Asshole's every stupid move. Nothing serious was ever covered.
CBHagman
(17,174 posts)...was that when Hillary Clinton put out a specific proposal on reducing the price of prescription drugs, the story appeared on the very last page of the first section of the newspaper. I don't need to tell you what occupied the front page and was above the fold.
Sometimes there really was no coverage at all. Some days we could have been forgiven for believing there was only one candidate.
Certainly in hindsight I'd say there ought to have been saturation advertising about HRC's economic policies, no question about it, but the media also framed it, including one NPR report that said Hillary Clinton had "vowed" to put miners out of work. They corrected it after being called out, but that's just one example.
doc03
(37,059 posts)one single ad from Hillary talking about policy, just he is worse than me. I did hear one Republican ad continually
of Hillary saying "We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work". I also never saw one campaign
sign for Hillary and few for Ted Strickland.