Who ran a worse campaign, Hillary or Kamala?

[Redban]

I would say Kamala. Hillary didn’t really make a ton of “mistakes” during the actual campaign. Her main issue is that she was unpopular with the electorate, which was the product of the email scandal, Benghazi, and other issues. People talk about how she didn’t visit WI; but at the time, people didn’t see that state as legit battleground . Hillary’s flaws were more that she was a bad candidate, not that she ran a poor campaign. Only “basket of deplorables” comes to mind when I think of mistakes

I think Harris was a better candidate than Hillary, as she had better favorables. But I believe Harris ran a worse campaign. She kept laughing non-stop during every appearance. She relied too much on celebrities. She had a mistaken notion that she could win over Republicans from the Liz Cheney, John McCain, and Nikki Haley wings. Her pick of Tim Walz as VP gave her no benefit

[Stranger in a strange land]

Both made the same critical mistake of abandoning economic populism to focus on winning over the mythical "moderate, decent Never Trump Republican" a voter who doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to decide any election. Harris deserves credit for turning what would have been a blowout after the 1st Debate and Assassination Attempt into a close win for Trump, and probably saved 5-7 senate seats and 20-30 house seats in the process.

Hillary, by contrast, had a far more favorable environment, with Obama actually having a net favorable rating for most of 2016. She didn't help herself by being a bad candidate with massive baggage, but made numerous mistakes and missteps along the way, and clearly ran the worse campaign in the end.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Hillary was trying to succeed a popular Democratic incumbent with a solid economy. Harris was trying to succeed an unpopular Democratic incumbent. I'd say Hillary ran a worse campaign. Harris was always fighting an uphill battle.

[wbrocks67]

Frankly I don't even think they're comparable given that Hillary had about a year and a half runway from when she announced and Kamala Harris had 107 days.

[MABA 2020]

Hillary and I don't think its close, not that campaigns matter anymore

[Redban]

Frankly I don't even think they're comparable given that Hillary had about a year and a half runway from when she announced and Kamala Harris had 107 days.

Brit Hume on Fox News said it best: “ there is no indication that more exposure would’ve helped Kamala Harris.” She bombed when she put herself out there more, as she kept laughing, talking in different accents, and doing interviews like the Bret Baier interview. If anything, the shorter campaign might have allowed her to retain some of the honeymoon residue from when she first took over  the nomination .

The race doesn’t get closer if Kamala has a full length campaign; Trump likely wins by more

[wbrocks67]

Frankly I don't even think they're comparable given that Hillary had about a year and a half runway from when she announced and Kamala Harris had 107 days.

Brit Hume on Fox News said it best: “ there is no indication that more exposure would’ve helped Kamala Harris.” She bombed when she put herself out there more, as she kept laughing, talking in different accents, and doing interviews like the Bret Baier interview. If anything, the shorter campaign might have allowed her to retain some of the honeymoon residue from when she first took over  the nomination .

The race doesn’t get closer if Kamala has a full length campaign; Trump likely wins by more

Except we have multiple data points that show her winning late deciders in the swing states. So the more they saw of her, the more they liked her. But if you're going to say things like "she kept laughing, talking in different accents", then I don't think you're coming at this in good faith, so.

[ottermax]

Harris overperformed the national environment in the swing states so that's pretty clear evidence that her campaign was actually quite effective, just not effective enough. The more people got know her and her message the more they were willing to give her a chance in a nationally sour environment.

[wbrocks67]

What were the swings in 2016 for battlegrounds vs. non battlegrounds? Did anyone ever calculate that?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think you have to judge the campaigns in the context of all in which they lived and what came before them.

From everything I know, Hillary Clinton and her people did not have the knowledge that the Blue Wall was ever in jeopardy. Democrats had been through two elections where states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were not even close... this, despite Romney putting in some effort to win them.

What's more, people mistook Obama's performance in 2012 as the country endorsing everything he stood for. His "Rainbow Coalition" seemed like the new normal for Democrats. I mean, it even seemed like the country was on board with a lot of the social justice causes that had been winning the day in the 2010s. In reality, Obama was a unique candidate and Romney had unique weaknesses. Still, I can see why Hillary's people were caught up in Democratic inevitability and the advance of progressive values.

Finally, I'll just add that Hillary Clinton did make a concerted effort to learn from her failure in 2008. Remember, 16 years ago Hillary was lambasted for ignoring the sexism she clearly faced and running as a candidate who "happened to be a woman." It was only when she literally cried and showed some "feminine emotion" that she managed to win New Hampshire, reviving her campaign. Her decision in 2016 to lean into being a woman may have come off as a contrite overemphasis on identity, but it was a calculated decision to build enthusiasm and come off more authentically. I'm not convinced this approach is what cost her the election, as just this year Kamala made no mention of being a woman and the gender gap widened.

Trump's unique appeal to the white working class had not been quantified when Hillary ran her campaign. His status as a teflon candidate was untested. No leading cultural powerbroker thought he could win. All these factors make it totally fair that Hillary Clinton lost. It was a huge squeaker, she added more Latinos and former Republicans to the fold, making progress on Obama's numbers in many places. Overall, she did a pretty good job and probably would have won in Bidenesque fashion had there been a do-over the very next day.

Kamala, on the other hand, had the benefit of learning from Clinton's mistakes but instead doubled-down on a lot of Hillary's failed messaging. Like with Hillary, her message jumped all over the place. First Trump was a joke, then Trump was old, then Trump was a fascist, then Trump was a racist. Hillary thought the preponderance of negativity would sink Trump, but her loss taught us that one steady theme is much more effective. So why did Kamala jump all over the place? Was it the winds of the focus groups? Probably. And Hillary's loss also taught us to lean away from the message testing, yet here we are.

Kamala's campaign targeted the right places, and we see that her numbers held up disproportionately well in the swing states, but a good campaign operation is not enough to make up for a candidate who doesn't get it. I'm not sure if she got it at first but then let Obama's campaign people take over, or what. But with two Trump campaigns already in the annals of history, she should have messaged better. She was up against terrible headwinds, but in the end I'm not very impressed.

Who ran a worse campaign? I say Kamala because she really didn't learn.

[wbrocks67]

I don't think Hillary ran a bad campaign but in hindsight, I think if we have to compare, Harris still ran a better campaign because her (abbreviated) campaign was more about 'you' while Hillarys was more about 'her' - in retrospect, the "I'm With Her" stuff was a bad idea and Harris corrected the idea of making the candidacy about her (her race/gender, etc.) and was much more prominent about "fighting for you" - Hillary had this, but I think it got muddled in the message about her candidacy being historic (which at the time wasn't seen as bad of an idea)

[I love MAGA, don’t send me to the camps]

It’s hard to say whose campaign was worse because there are so many ways to try to assess that, beyond the simple did they win question. I think it’s abundantly clear that Hillary was a far worse candidate and less likable person. Unlike with Kamala, voters generally recoiled the more they saw and heard of her.

[It's Time.]

Hillary blew an easily winnable race. I’m not sure if anyone else could have blown that race.

You needed an exceptional candidate to win 2024 and Harris was not that. She did fine all things considered.

[Averroës]

Obama 2012 > Obama 2008 > Harris 2024 > Clinton 2016 > Biden 2020 > Biden 2024

[Pericles]

Obama 2012 > Obama 2008 > Harris 2024 > Clinton 2016 > Biden 2020 > Biden 2024

That's a bit unfair to Biden 2020, surely?

[Averroës]

Obama 2012 > Obama 2008 > Harris 2024 > Clinton 2016 > Biden 2020 > Biden 2024

That's a bit unfair to Biden 2020, surely?

He won by the skin of his teeth after a year of economic tumult and civil unrest that weighed heavily on a (literally) ailing and scandal-plagued incumbent. He ran a basement campaign and let the party pull him over the line. Democrats throughout the country saved his bacon.

That's my thinking, anyway. Probably worth making the case in more detail at some point, because I doubt many people are inclined to agree. It's always hard to argue that a winning campaign was weak, because everyone knows it was good enough.

[Bush did 311]

Hillary. I can think of positive aspects of Kamala's campaign. Good social media presence, good ground game, she set records for small donations and volunteers and that's stuff people don't do unless they like their candidate--which a fair number of libs did.

Doesn't mean her campaign was good--there were obvious issues. But the difference in results comes down to the environment of the year more. Hillary missed a layup shot and Kamala missed a half court shot at the buzzer.

[oldtimer]

Hillary had the inferior strategy, but superior tactics.  Harris had the superior strategy, but inferior tactics. [on the whole, there are elements of Harris' tactics that were superior and elements of Hillary's strategy that were superior].

There's a reason why I knew Hillary was pretty much done after the 9/11 fainting spell, but honestly couldn't tell where things would go for Harris.

It's easier to sus out a questionable strategy than it is bad tactics.

Hillary's death blow was the Comey investigation that happened at the worst possible time. I think Hillary's health wasn't a major factor however

Hillary first fell behind in Pennsylvania polling in Mar. 2015, her numbers where declining broadly since late 2013, mirroring the drop of Obama and the rest of the Democrats.

She was on course to lose at least 18 months before the election and the Comey letter, her email was an excuse by people who had already decided to vote against the Democrats.

[Skill and Chance]

Lean Kamala

You can't blame Hillary for trying it the first time, but there was no excuse for Kamala re-running the weakest part of Hillary's campaign (Trump = fascism/end of democracy, backed up with a bunch of establishment DC lifer R endorsements) as her closing argument in mid-late October.

On the other hand, Kamala's August-September in 2024 was actually quite good, probably better than Hillary's August-September approach in 2016.

[Badger]

Whenever a candidate loses, even a close election like this - their campaign is immediately dubbed the most disastrous and American history etc. Clinton's actually was in so many ways snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. While not perfect - what campaign is? - they're really wasn't that much wrong with Harris's campaign. The bottom line is as Al pointed out in a recent post, this election proves voters don't like inflation. There were also some very troubling Trends among male voters of all Races which I don't think Harris could avoid.

[LBJer]

While not perfect - what campaign is? - they're really wasn't that much wrong with Harris's campaign. The bottom line is as Al pointed out in a recent post, this election proves voters don't like inflation.

Apparently many hate inflation more than they love democracy.

[Mr. Smith]

Obama 2012 > Obama 2008 > Harris 2024 > Clinton 2016 > Biden 2020 > Biden 2024

That's a bit unfair to Biden 2020, surely?

Not really. Biden was the worst. Almost blowing the perfect ace in the hole, while Harris/Clinton at least had nasty headwinds.  Expect nothing else from a guy that lost to Dukakis and I'm pretty sure was behind Chris-Freaking-Dodd in 2008 (certainly behind Edwards), let alone Obama.

He literally pulled a Trump 2016/2024 on Trump. Everything fell into place.

Would not be surprised if 2028 was similar against Vance. Not at all.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Whenever a candidate loses, even a close election like this - their campaign is immediately dubbed the most disastrous and American history etc. Clinton's actually was in so many ways snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. While not perfect - what campaign is? - they're really wasn't that much wrong with Harris's campaign. The bottom line is as Al pointed out in a recent post, this election proves voters don't like inflation. There were also some very troubling Trends among male voters of all Races which I don't think Harris could avoid.

Female voters also trended right too. The only group who didnt trend right basically were older voters



Source: https://substack.com/home/post/p-151307492

[Mr. Smith]

I'll also note that Hillary never forgot who her main opponent was, while Harris wasted time trashing Jill Stein, ironically this probably gave anti-Gaza people permission to go over that way rather than just suck it up like a buttercup.

I mean could you imagine if Truman went after Wallace in the 1948 and took a break from Dewey?

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

Clinton by far. She had no business losing. Harris mostly did what she could under very unfavorable circumstances, and any mistakes she made probably didn’t make much of a difference.