In the discussion of what went wrong, very little has focused on the advertising. This is probably wrong headed – Clinton based much of her strategy on TV advertising.
This was her closing ad – and the only to run in significant numbers in Michigan.
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKDHioNLb4I
A friend from the Sanders campaign involved in the ad campaign thought, and indeed had heard, that it was an attempt at copying the Sanders closing argument in Iowa.
Sanders had Paul Simon’s “America”, Clinton’s had Katy Perry’s “Roar”.
Here is the Sanders ad:
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug
There is no doubt the Sanders ad worked in Iowa. I had people mention it when I canvassed.
The campaigns were in completely different places at the time. This is actually one of the few positive ads I saw from Clinton. Virtually all of her advertising was negative.
The Sanders ad was meant to tall a story. From individuals coming together to form a movement. So the family, the farmer, the small businessmen to the small crowd to the large crowd. It was mean to convey how one voice coming together could change the world. It was brilliant
By the time it aired everyone knew in Iowa what Sanders was for.
I don’t think people ever had the same sense with Clinton. Her policy positions were not featured in her advertising – and if you went back and looked at Bills advertising in ’92 the contrast would be remarkable.
The Clinton ad was similar in ways – capturing the different reasons why people were voting for her. But – and I admit I am a Sanders guy – I don’t think it fit where her campaign was at the time.
There was a landslide to win in 2016 – one seen in the trial heats between Obama and Trump late in October and trial heats between Sanders and Trump.
The problem I think is the Clinton campaign never made the message of what they were for very clear in their own ads. As a result their closing ad doesn’t work – and Sanders ad did.
To work ads like these need a predicate that comes before. The Clinton campaign never built one.
Agree that Clinton’s ad emulates Bernie’s. However, that’s where the similarity ends.
Clinton was targeting younger voters. Sanders targeted voters. Evident in many of the differences between the two ads.
*HRC has been stuck on “I” since 2007 and that’s telling as to how she views her campaigns. Obama went with “you.” Bernie “us/we.” Trump “it.”
I’ll stand by my opinion from early in the year that Bernie’s TV ad team was by far one of the best ever. Perhaps it’s easier to do great work for an authentic politician or he just got very lucky in attracting first rate talent. Now I think I’ll cry for what could have been.
My memory of the Sanders ad when I first saw it: the flag. The flag is everywhere in that ad. The music ties to the images more explicitly.
“I’ve got some real estate here in my bag”
The image is of a family farmer working in the field.
The individual as part of a collective effort.
I have no doubt Bernie was the better candidate now.
I agree with everything you have written.
He’s with us, vs I’m with her and his ad expressed it beautifully. to whom did her slogan speak? loved Sanders’ ad. her entire campaign was, T is scary. I’m not becoming more calm, I’m becoming more upset about what she/ the Clintons, the DNC did to 2016 and to the country
Among the “competent” mistakes of the Clinton camp I would bring the vice-presidential debate. No one else would say it, but that one debate was probably more decisive than the 3 glorious presidential debates. Why?
I guess there was a big group of undecided voters that had a certain interest in the vice-presidential candidates. Given the advanced age of Clinton and Trump, they were curious who would step in. Whether we like it or not, age and health are important issues in how troops of our species wish to decide on a leader.
Ask yourself: how many people would have liked seeing Kaine as the president after that debate? He might have won enough on the issues (useless to argue), but his non-verbal performance was terrible. The interruptions were so unnecessary obnoxious, they were beyond social acceptance even by Trump’s standards. Whatever reason for the interruptions – poor temper control? or was it deliberate? – Kaine was showing himself as a hack following a script rather than a considerate leader of any kind. By his impatience, speech tempo, weird physical presence Kaine was screaming: Don’t rely on me!
His performance was perhaps not decisive right away, but he earned a fat minus for Clinton among that group of voters I described. It was an extra factor not to go out for Clinton on the election day, or go and vote for Trump. Trump’s pussygate was basically over with this debate.
Interestingly, Kaine had started well answering the second question on trusting Hilary Clinton (watch here). Bringing up passion for public service was a good move. But instead of telling a whole story with a physcial conviction, he switched to attacking Trump within 40s. With this “performance”, Pence’s radical conservatism was not in the picture at all.
Thanks for the reminder. I’d forgotten about that — but CW in these parts is that VP debates don’t matter. Yet, I saw Cheney walk all over Lieberman and then Edwards. Biden bested Palin and Ryan. And I seem to recall that Gore cleaned up against Quayle and Stockdale.
Check out Kaine at Hillary’s “concession” speech. He clapped like trained seal.
In a diary of Nu’s titled “could Obama have won” I made that point about ads. Clinton’s ads sucked. Even when they go negative on trump it was never issues based, all character.
There were awful.
Trump had one VERY good ad in the end I saw a lot in NH. The Clinton were nothing but character ads.
They were not very good.
My impression was that the Clinton campaign mostly ran on character, not issues. They had the policy papers and the platform for those with an inclination to read them, but they didn’t put the issues front and center and market them.
And whenever I see that, I figure it’s because they want to ditch the policies later and minimise the blowback from it.
Exactly.