Bill de Blasio: if Clinton had had a message of economic change, would overwhelmed Trump

[portlander23]

Bill de Blasio Says Bernie Sanders’s ‘Message’ Would Have Won
Eric Levitz
New York Magazine

But then, one can also point to the decision to campaign in Arizona but not in Wisconsin, or to direct the campaign’s ground game not to waste any time on trying to persuade unfriendly voters, or to prosecute the case against Donald Trump primarily on grounds of fitness and moral values, rather than on the regressiveness of his economic agenda.

“I say it with tremendous respect for her, and again, she won 2.6 million more votes than Donald Trump so it’s kind of hard to ignore that fact,” de Blasio said. “But I believe if she had had a message of economic change, it would have overwhelmed a lot of what Trump was putting forward, I think it would have helped her to keep some of those states.”

De Blasio endorsed Clinton during the primary, but not before making a big show of withholding that endorsement on the grounds that he needed to hear more about “her larger vision [for] addressing income inequality.”

[CentralMass]

1. This will make heads spin.

[joshcryer]

2. She did.

No one bought it because Clinton Cash and Wall Street Speeches.

And somehow the guy who is literally an oligarch got elected.

[virtualobserver]

4. You can't run on change without criticizing the incumbent President unless.....

you run a nationalized "we can't afford another Republican congress" campaign.

She ran a "we can't afford Trump" campaign, which is not a campaign of economic change.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

9. that was only the talking point towards the end

We don't need radical economic change right now. Green jobs would've accomplished that over time. This was the same bullshit that made Brexit a thing and you know it.

[virtualobserver]

11. Perhaps you don't personally need "radical" economic change....

but some people are suffering.

Also, a successful Presidential campaign has to have a clear rallying point. She didn't have one.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

12. Define suffering

Nobody who voted for Trump is "suffering". They have no idea what even the precipice real suffering looks like unlike the 95% of black people who voted for Hillary. Worst case scenario they can't afford to upgrade their iPhone.

[virtualobserver]

18. Nobody? You must not be familiar with the rust belt.

You communicate in such absolute terms.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

19. Nobody

The rust belt isn't suffering. Very few people are actually suffering in America. That's why we're a first-world country. Inner cities like Chicago are the closest to suffering. And because of the electoral college, their votes don't matter.

[virtualobserver]

21. Oh, Please.....

I'm sorry that the rust belt hasn't suffered sufficiently in terms of your personal tastes.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

22. nope just the common definition of the word

I'd describe what they're feeling as a recession in contentment.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

13. This was about fear

Trump's rallying point wasn't about the economy. That was Bernie. Hillary's rallying point was also fear, because the majority of "the bubble" maintained that when it comes down to it, Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for a public psychopath.

[virtualobserver]

20. It was about the economy....you just didn't hear his message

he wasn't talking about bringing back a job that you were particularly interested in, that's all.

You didn't agree that all of the trade deals were poorly negotiated.

[joshcryer]

23. The media didn't cover her campaign legitimately.

That's the narrative the media built. It is not the grassroots campaign she ran where she visited hundreds and hundreds of schools, vocational places, low income working environments, whole nine yards. You may, if you wish, go to CSPAN and watch the hundreds of roundtables she did.

[virtualobserver]

27. The media never covers anything legitimately

It is the job of the party and the campaign to transcend their nonsense.

I do understand that they ran a campaign...it just wasn't an effective one.

They needed a campaign strong enough to retake the Senate. We are probably screwed for decades now, if our aging SC justices can't hang on.

[joshcryer]

30. The country is going to make a rightward shift as a whole.

[SidDithers]

3. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[Fast Walker 52]

5. not this shit again... Grrr!!!

How many times do we need to debunk this??

Why are Dems leaders so clueless?

[SaschaHM]

16. "How many times do we need to debunk this??"

That depends on how many articles portlander23 can find today.

[stillcool]

6. why she ever

chose to run on the message of emails and Benghazi is beyond me.

[bettyellen]

7. and her vagina! Why'd she have to run on her ho-ha?

*sarcasm*

[mcar]

10. Thread win!

[Orsino]

14. .

[JTFrog]

24. Best response I've read in the Postmortem forum.

Thanks, I needed that.

[JHan]

26. Comment of the thread really /nt

[Uponthegears]

8. It would be interesting

to see a percentage-of-lines analysis of Hillary's speeches and television ads over the last 3-4 weeks of the campaign to see how much time the geniuses running her campaign spent on spreading her economic (or her social, or her foreign policy) agenda (ALL of which were vastly superior to the Orange Orangutan) compared to how much time they spent on hammering home how any man who uses his wealth and/or power to gain sexual acquiescence is unqualified to be president of the United States (a message might have worked better if they could have convinced voters to wear blinders to block out the parade of prior presidents who had done just that).

[virtualobserver]

15. Given the extremity of Trump's words, I can see why they thought that their strategy might work

I think that ceding the airwaves to Republicans for months in 2015 while Trump munched on his rivals was a bad idea that both DWS and Hillary's campaign (there was a separation? as if!) embraced.

I don't believe in the competence of her Team, so I don't believe that they would have taken advantage of it. Now, if Hillary had let Bill run this, I think that she would have been much better off.

[JHan]

28. that I agree with..

Bill's political instincts are better than hers , Mook's and almost everyone else on her team.

[NCTraveler]

17. Weak fud. Debunked over and over again.

Won't stop some from their continued attempts at deception.

[uponit7771]

25. Comey, Voter suppression, Russia... !!!!

[ucrdem]

29. I heard both Hill and Bill wax eloquent on Hillary's economic plans.

People forget the 90s, or weren't around for them, but Clintonomics is what the Clintons do best, and in that department they soared. That's why Bill was impeached but not convicted and sailed to the end of his presidency on a wave of steady growth and prosperity.

Maybe they had a different message on the east coast but in California it was Clintonomics all the way and she won the state by 4.3 million votes:

Hillary Clinton - (Party: DEM) - 8,753,788 - 62.2%
Donald J Trump - (Party: REP) - 4,483,810 - 31.8%

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/