Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
In this case I'm not sure it would have. I mean people voted for a guy that had no policies laid out (and still really doesn't). Campaigning ought to be for laying out policies and that's what Clinton did form start to finish. Anyone who voted for Trump either disagree with that platform or had no interest in understanding it in the first place.
Now it can also be used to fire up the base but that was never going to be Clinton's strength or even within her capability. She was a boring, safe candidate who just happened to clearly be the best person for the job out of all those that ran on both sides (I'd say Bernie was capable as well). People didn't want that full stop. I'm not sure how Clinton campaigning or changing positions on things changes that (and you changing positions would have bit her hard...only Trump is allowed to say something different everytime he opens his mouth).
I hope this experience shows people one thing...boring and safe isn't bad when it comes to leadership of a country.
|
I don't know. I assume candidates visit places because it gives some sort of a bump. It's hard to believe she couldn't have squeezed out the necessary votes if she had more of a presence in those states.