Blue Mass Group
Reality-based commentary on politics.
September 23, 2016 By Bob Neer 58 Comments
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“Trump is a bad man, a very bad man”….Vote for Hillary?
Well, because Trump is a bad man, a very bad man.
One would think that since this woman is the most qualified person to ever run for office in the history of the republic what she would have a positive reason to vote for her, eh?
This is a very good, powerful ad. But I agree. She needs a positive ad in the mix about why people should vote for her rather than against Trump. She has three effective ads in this same vein and none offering her experience and vision for the country. Having the mix of all of those would be most effective and focusing on these negative ads is only doing part of what she needs to do.
She can multitask, but yes, Trump is DUMB (ie Dangerous Unqualified Misogynistic Bigot) and should be voted against with all the enthusiasm and outrage we can muster.
all about how many people we can vote against Trump versus how many people they can get to vote against Clinton……
Gee, I’m getting goosebumps in my excitement over this sort of way to select the president of the USA.
I DID say above that she has made the ads and can multitask.
If one of the tasks is a waste of time and money in a close election?
What good is repeating the same comment over and over? We get that you despise Hillary Clinton and jump at any and every opportunity to attack her.
Whatever the claimed motivation, the result is that here on this site you take the opportunity to flood each and every attack or criticism of Donald Trump with a litany of attacks and criticisms of Hillary Clinton.
This is a effective ad.
If want positive ads, there are many. For example, here are four:
2. Janelle: “She cares. She listened, and she cares”.
In fact, there lots and lots of positive Hillary Clinton pieces. They aren’t hard to find, and she’s using them.
You do, however, have to be willing to see and hear them. You also have to be willing to step outside the bullshit media horserace box. You have stop letting Fox and Morning Joe and CNN and the rest manipulate your feelings.
You have to be willing to engage Ms. Clinton with the same openness that you bring to any other candidate.
If you have nothing to say.
It is clear that you consider anything that doesn’t appeal to you personally to be a waste. There are other people in the world different from you, but you show little interest or understanding in them.
I think this is a great piece.
Too many of us fail to grasp just how sexist this man is. There is nothing subtle about him.
I have three daughters, I have a personal stake in this. When my daughters are attacked, I attack their attacker. I don’t care who attacks Donald Trump or why — I think he is a despicable man with a lifelong history of flagrant and abusive sexism.
at a Toyota dealership and I came in to look at a Toyota Camry, arguably one of the best selling, safest, most reliable, affordable cars EVER built, your sales pitch would be, “BUY this care because compared to the Yugo, it’s a better choice!”
Really? Is that the best sales line you have? Seems rather weak. Does that speak to your sales skills or the real qualities of the Camry?
You think that Hillary might lose this because Trump will win the women’s vote?
Your posture that this is about “the women’s vote” is itself sexist and demeaning. Sexism is NOT a “women’s issue”.
I’d like to think that every person, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, is appalled by this man.
I think the candidate’s name is “HIllary Clinton” or Ms. Clinton. I think that she will win in part because she speaks to the values held by a majority of Americans.
I think an ad like this reminds at least some of us that one candidate is sensitive to and aware of how pervasive sexism is in our culture, and how important it is to overcome it. It helps remind some of us, who may be contemplating a vote for Mr. Trump despite his sexism (and racism, and xenophobia), just how toxic and hurtful his attitudes are.
I think that helps those “despite” voters, especially those who often vote Republican, make the move to vote for Ms. Clinton.
….really, this is getting boring and predictable. Never did I say, infer, or suggest that this is about the “women’s vote”. But that’s the caricature you need to portray me as to oppose me, much in the way you have created a saintlike caricature of Hillary in support of her.
Oh well, play on!
Here is your comment (emphasis mine):
You think that Hillary might lose this because Trump will win the women’s vote?
Did your evil twin post that comment without your knowledge?
You chose the phrase “the women’s vote”. Your comment certainly suggests to me that you think “the women’s vote” describes the purpose of the ad.
How else are we to interpret your words?
To turn that into a sexist comment. It’s also out of context relative to this thread. Buy hey, you need me to be that caricature. Kudos, however, for not dragging Rush and Fox News into this.
that fathers of daughters, brothers of sisters, husbands of wives and sons of mothers also vote, and might be touched by this ad. I was.
Really? What was it prior to this “revelation” about him that was appealing about him to you?
…but I can see this ad possibly swaying others less familiar with the DUMB candidate’s comments or at very least turn the outrage up to 11 and get them to turn out.
Maybe some day we’ll have an election where the Democrat can simply run on a positive message, list their accomplishments, and lay out a clear path that leads to greater prosperity for all Americans. Until then, I guess we’ll just have to run on the principle that our candidate does not suck nearly as much as their candidate.
The GOP had a number of choices this year who would have been better and more qualified than the DUMB candidate, but against whom she STILL could and would do exactly as you suggest.
However, the exact margin could depend on how well she reaches any women on the fence. She also wants to make sure that women are motivated to vote.
An advertising campaign that solely focuses on voters you might actually lose would be outright stupid. Is that what you are suggesting she should do?
that this mirror is going to reflect the image of Bill Clinton and his enabler Hillary, as far as the treatment of women is concerned? They run this ad at their own peril, especially if Gennifer Flowers shows up in the front row of the debate on Monday.)))))
You have absolutely no idea about other people’s marriages — including the Clintons. It is very sexist to presume it’s the wife’s fault for a husband’s misdeeds.
…I’ll take Bill Clinton over the DUMB candidate as better for women any day.
…Gennifer Flowers is yesterday’s news, someone Bill admitted long ago to having a fling with and Hillary I’m sure has already dealt with it. DUMB has threatened to put her in the front row in response to Hillary suggesting she will put Mark Cuban in the front row, proving once again that he is treating this race like a very childish game. Nobody has suggested the affair with Flowers was not consensual. If she is a victim it is at the hands of the tabloids and the VWRC, but not Bill.
Mark Cuban is no political prize either. Neither are a stellar invite to show your state of mind.
He’s used his platform to sound Bloombergian notions about centrist governance and to show how much more knowledgeable he is than Trump (hardly a difficult task). He can’t be alone among the famous billionaires club thinking “if a guy as dumb as the Donald can do it, and do it on the cheap, why not me?”. So he invited Hillary and Donald to sit down with him and answer his questions for an hour a piece, and she cleverly disarmed him by inviting him to the first debate. He isn’t any more qualified to talk to candidates than we are, he just happens to have more money and a wider platform, and she demonstrated that.
I think that putting Gennifer Flowers in the debate audience, especially as a Donald Trump supporter, exemplifies the empty viciousness of Mr. Trump — not to mention his ignorance.
If you or he thinks that the presence of Ms. Flowers will help his campaign, I suggest each of you is about to learn differently. The GOP tried that gambit in 1992 — that’s how Ms. Flowers got into the public eye. The gambit failed then and it will fail now.
So long as we’re discussing “enablers”, where does the reality of Mr. Trump’s marital history, together with the age of his four respective spouses, fit into that picture?
I find your alleged concern a thinly disguised rationalization for your hostility towards Ms. Clinton — or perhaps her husband.
Nobody under 30 knows or cares who she is. I really only know of her since she’s a bit character in the War Room. This is just trolling, which I’m increasingly convinced is the only messaging the Trump campaign is capable of. Bill’s sexcapades are the least interesting and least relevant part of his record as far as I’m concerned.
And I think most voters would rather discuss how the candidates will govern for the 2010/2020’s than endlessly relitigate the 90s. Hillary would be wise to be forward thinking herself, instead of nostalgic about an era most voters have forgotten about.
what does “enabler” mean, ETA? It must mean something other than what’s in the dictionary definition of enabler because there’s absolutely no evidence that Sec. HRC enabled Pres. WJC in any way with Flowers, or anyone else, ever.
…that by not leaving Bill, Hillary essentially winked and nodded that she would tolerate his behavior.
Women have heard enough from Mr. Trump that they do not have to be spoon fed that he is disrespectful of women. In a more refined way HRC is trying to use humiliation to bolster her campaign. This is Trump’s style. If you choose to play on that level, then voters pick who is better at it, especially those on the fence.
Lost is Hillary’s positions on issues that people care about. They want to see the contrast between the two. It gets lost with ads like this.
I canvassed for Mike Day the rep running to keep his seat in the Mass legislature. When you ask it is all about issues. You also get what political beliefs people hold. When they go to vote it is not gossip that moves them. It was all about background, what he stands for, and how he fits with their outlook. He is only one candidate I have done this work for, and it goes back some 15 years. It was rare for decision making to be based on a food fight.
This ad is not just targeting women. Rather, it cleverly appeals to men with mothers, daughters and/or sisters — that is, everyone.
And this ad addresses how Americans tend to self-identify with our President — one of the reasons many more people vote in Presidential elections than others. Americans tend to define periods of time as who is President (e.g., the 80s as Reagan years, the 90s as the economic boom of the Clinton decade, … ). This ad asks do you really want to be defined as America’s Trump years?
The men who care about women so mocked also should have been included. It does not change my opinion about this ad. We already know in spades Mr. Trump has little respect for women and their male counterparts.
Yes, she will probably benefit from a gender gap without this ad, but it needs to become a gender canyon. There are women who still support the DUMB candidate after all.
BTW, this running up the score strategy should apply more broadly. Of course the campaign officially will focus on the electoral map as they should. The rest of us need to convince as many as we can to vote for her even in states that are probably a lock either way. IMO the popular vote will be symbolically important this year in a way it generally isn’t. The whole world is watching as we make this decision and we must show them America decisively rejects what the DUMB candidate is peddling. I can live with the electoral math ending up at 271-269 IFF the popular vote has a spread of at least 60-40.
Lost is Hillary’s positions on issues that people care about. They want to see the contrast between the two.
.. for a lot of the “issues that people care about” get tossed out the window because she’s not a man.
The GOP nominated a complete absurdity rather than compromise. They nominated the opposite-world bizarro anti-Hillary and they did this not because they like the anti-Hillary. They did this because they are, to their core, anti Hillary. And the reason they are anti Hillary is because she is both not a man and, yet, competent. This is in perfect opposition to their every notion of what women are capable of doing and being.
That’s the contrast: they are willing to toss all their notions and ideas, about any issue whatsoever, out the window at the merest whiff of estrogen.
Is that what we want for our daughters? And, for that matter, our sons?
Obama won a narrow majority of white working class women, while he lost the male demo narrowly to Romney. Trump is winning the latter demo by double digits while the former demo is neck and neck. Her classmates at this community college in exurban/rural Chicagoland are all working moms, their men are in construction or law enforcement, and they tend to be soft evangelicals who are skeptical of the welfare state, “special” considerations for minorities, “illegals” and the like. But they are also strong women who run half marathons, hike and hunt with their husbands, and strongly feel they can compete with the boys.
These folks were all Romney voters four years ago and now they are gonna sit this one out, ads like this inspire them to vote for Hillary for the sake of their daughters and to shame their husbands into doing the same. This will pay dividends in WI, OH, MI, FL and IA. Especially the latter which was an easy win not just for Obama but even for Kerry that’s been trending Trumps way all year. Now we just need to work on Carlos, her Hispanic classmate voting for Trump….
Anyone who is undecided or on the fence with regard to Mr. Trump needs to be reminded that he has a very poor opinion of women? That’s why they are undecided? They are unaware of his life’s story?
Look, the guy is a creep, a bigot, a liar, and the only person in recent history with such high negatives, with the only one coming as close is his opponent. With BOTH candidates possessing super high negatives, would is not wise for “the most qualified person on the planet” to avoid the negative route and go positive?
when you have a winning point you hammer it home, repeatedly.
I think you don’t just say, Okay, job done, move on. I think the left almost always makes that mistake, assuming that since they get it the issue is settled and there’s no point in persisting.
has spent too little time on her positives and the positives expressed at the Democratic Convention, but negative campaigning works. Period.
The Clinton campaign knows its targets. Believe it or not, people don’t follow politics like we do and those who are persuadable have just started paying attention again.
The press simply won’t report on any positive messaging but amplifies the negative. As long as she spends any time at all attacking Trump, that is what is going to be reported.
I think it would be smart of her to highlight stories of downscale working mothers helped by her policies. I just found out today she was the lead sponsor of bills to help veterans go to school and keep their houses when they were deployed, CHIP while First Lady, and a host of loans for small businesses for women. All of these policies should be emphasized in a new campaign.
happening in the battleground states. I don’t know if New Hampshire has that media or not. It’s hard to tell what’s happening in the campaign in specific locales.
..when she was my senator (when I lived in NY) that she went to bat for a small business that was getting hammered by competition from China. She tired to get them assistance due to the fact that new trade laws were putting them out of business and she did not think that was fair to them. She failed due to a lack of support by her colleagues but this would be the prefect story to tell over and over again to the unemployed and underemployed guys out there, you know, the demographic she does so poorly with…….
See Roxie, Janelle, Alethea, or Ruline — all mentioned upthread.
She’s doing it, the campaign is doing it. The challenge is to get the media to report it.
Great ads, but where’s Randy, Jarret, Alan, or Rupert? Where are the dudes?
I never have liked the idea that we can only relate to or identify with people who demographically like us. If the message is helping small businesses the gender of the proprietor doesn’t seem relevant.
You never have liked the idea that we can only relate to or identify with people who demographically like us? Really? So when they posted that infamous post of Paul Ryan with the “Young Republicans” behind him and every college student was lily white, you thought it would be odd for some of us Democrats to point that out as proof that the Republicans have no appeal or outreach for minority students? Really? That’s how you felt?
…I did think much ado was made about not very much in that photo. We have this thread because Trump’s blatant misogyny needs to be called out.
Hillary’s avoidance of addressing unemployed or underemployed males?
…she has AND it’s a distinction without a difference anyway. Are you seriously saying that you cannot identify with women in similar economic situations as you? If so, maybe S’Tom has been right all along about your sexism.
So it’s not just positive ads you demand, it is positive ads that target males. I thought, when I uprated your comment, that you were using “guys” in its current gender-neutral meaning. I see from your followup that I was incorrect.
You really can’t or won’t accept anything that doesn’t explicitly target males. Then you squawk as loudly as Donald Trump when I call that out as “sexist”.
The problem is to get those folks who don’t think Trump is fit to be president to believe that Hillary is a positive choice. A good strategy would be to establish awful Trump as the first argument, and to follow up with a message to bring folks to Hillary. At this point, it’s time for the pivot, and it looks like the Clinton folks are counting on the first debate to be the stage for this pivot. It’s a gamble.
Whether or not Hillary is able to use the first debate as a pivot, this is the time where Hillary needs to bring the undecideds, stay-at-homes, and third party flirters into her camp. She needs to change the “they’re both bad” narrative coming from the GOP, with the hopes that voters will see Hillary at Trump’s level.
Does anybody still think Clinton missed a trick by hammering this theme?
‘Cause I sure don’t.
Now we see the right-wing smear machine bullying and terrorizing a fifteen year old school girl who did just every parent I know wants their child to do: knowing she might have a chance to ask question of Ms. Clinton, she wrote her question about this topic, rehearsed it with her dad, and raised her hand when asked. The moderator called on her, and it was a great question.
In response, the right wing has accused her of being a paid plant (with ZERO evidence, of course, because their is none), bullying and insulting her. She has received tens of thousands of insults and even threats via twitter.
This is how the right wing treats women, especially young women.
This behavior is not just despicable, it is deplorable. It is nauseating. It is Donald Trump’s GOP.
…in light of the Access Hollywood footage that came to light yesterday.