Who ran a worse campaign, Hillary or Kamala?

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

Kamala's Side Hoe preserved my critique of Hillary's 2016 campaign:

Hillary ran a worse CAMPAIGN, but Kamala was a far worse CANDIDATE.  That, to me, is the bottom line.

Even the debate people here say Kamala "won" was a loss.  The polls eventually gave a slight edge to Trump on that question.  That debate didn't hurt her, but Kamala said nothing on policy; it was nothing but attacking Trump over issues that were either (A) preposterous (e. g. the idea that Trump's failure to support the "Immigration Bill" is the reason for illegal immigration), or (B) the sort of attacks that were covering well trod ground.  (The bias of the moderators didn't help Harris in the eyes of undecided voters who recognized their pro-Kamala bias.)

Shielding candidates from tough interviews and tough questions isn't a BAD campaign; it's a GOOD campaign.  Nixon's handlers did the same thing in 1968.  He did mostly softballs and refused to debate.  The difference is that Nixon COULD handle the heat; he was a substantive candidate.  In "The Selling of the President 1968", Joe McGinniss told of how a ringer got onto the panel in a Philly news show and tried a "gotcha" question on Vietnam.  The questioner accused Nixon of falsely accusing a professor of "calling for" a victory by the Viet Cong.  When confronted, Nixon pointed out that the professor in question "welcomed" the victory of the Viet Cong.  The questioner emphasized that the professor didn't "call for" the victory.  Nixon then said he was "turn(ing) over the question to the TV audience" and the audience could decide if there was a difference.

Kamala could never do that.  She could never answer substantive questions about policy, and she flubbed softball interviews.  Part of this was the fact that her staff refuted a number of her previous positions that were controversial (Fracking, Transgender Inmate Surgeries, Defund the Police).  She later on disavowed the positions, but after that, she said "My values haven't changed!"  That was a ham-handed attempt to have it both ways, and it wasn't done skillfully. 

As a candidate, she never did a thing to become more likable.  More importantly, she never did a thing to convince people that she was more competent than Trump.  I believed that she presented as someone who was nowhere near up to the job; that was a perception much of the public had of her.  Her boost in polls after Joe melted down in debate only meant that she looked good compared to the guy who melted down, wandered off at pressers, etc.  You can cry "Sexism!" all night long, but even sexists know Hillary knew what she was talking about, policy-wise.

While the campaign did much to cover up the weaknesses, it DID make a few serious flaws.  The biggest one was the failure of Harris to show what she was "turning the page" to; how she would be different than Biden.  Perhaps this was impossible; shifting to a more moderate posture would have looked like a repudiation of Biden, but continuing the leftist posture of the Biden Administration meant that she was the candidate of "no change" and saddled her with positions that she had that Biden adopted that did not have widespread public support.  I believe that those directives came to Harris from whomever ran the Biden White House.  HHH was in that position to, but he made a speech on October 1, 1968 in Salt Lake City, UT breaking slightly with LBJ's war policy and talking about taking "acceptable risks for peace"; this posture sparked a rally for HHH that almost pulled out the election for him.  Kamala couldn't even do that much. 

[Mehmentum]

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.

Yeah, this is my position.  Its hard to judge her harshly when she was dropped into the race with a 100 days to go because the sitting president had a meltdown on live TV and was on track to lose New York.

[Adjective-Statement]

Harris could theoretically have gone places.

[Zed!]

Hillary easily lol. Her campaign was a dumpster fire.

Harris and Hillary both were not good candidates. It's just Trump was way stronger in 2024 then 2016.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Kamala ran a good campaign, but she was a really bad candidate. That was obvious in advance. The campaign did their best, but when you have someone with a far-left record, ties to Biden, childless and from San Fransisco, bad at speaking off the cuff, and frankly just a not very intelligent person, there’s only so much you can do. Hillary was an ok candidate, she “deserved” to be president, but she got really unlucky with the populist energy in 2016. She still won the PV and  cam much closer to winning the EC than Harris. Remember that in any other country Hillary would have won. She won the popular vote.

[Yu748Girl83]

Kamala's Side Hoe preserved my critique of Hillary's 2016 campaign:

Hillary ran a worse CAMPAIGN, but Kamala was a far worse CANDIDATE.  That, to me, is the bottom line.

Even the debate people here say Kamala "won" was a loss.  The polls eventually gave a slight edge to Trump on that question.  That debate didn't hurt her, but Kamala said nothing on policy; it was nothing but attacking Trump over issues that were either (A) preposterous (e. g. the idea that Trump's failure to support the "Immigration Bill" is the reason for illegal immigration), or (B) the sort of attacks that were covering well trod ground.  (The bias of the moderators didn't help Harris in the eyes of undecided voters who recognized their pro-Kamala bias.)

Shielding candidates from tough interviews and tough questions isn't a BAD campaign; it's a GOOD campaign.  Nixon's handlers did the same thing in 1968.  He did mostly softballs and refused to debate.  The difference is that Nixon COULD handle the heat; he was a substantive candidate.  In "The Selling of the President 1968", Joe McGinniss told of how a ringer got onto the panel in a Philly news show and tried a "gotcha" question on Vietnam.  The questioner accused Nixon of falsely accusing a professor of "calling for" a victory by the Viet Cong.  When confronted, Nixon pointed out that the professor in question "welcomed" the victory of the Viet Cong.  The questioner emphasized that the professor didn't "call for" the victory.  Nixon then said he was "turn(ing) over the question to the TV audience" and the audience could decide if there was a difference.

Kamala could never do that.  She could never answer substantive questions about policy, and she flubbed softball interviews.  Part of this was the fact that her staff refuted a number of her previous positions that were controversial (Fracking, Transgender Inmate Surgeries, Defund the Police).  She later on disavowed the positions, but after that, she said "My values haven't changed!"  That was a ham-handed attempt to have it both ways, and it wasn't done skillfully. 

As a candidate, she never did a thing to become more likable.  More importantly, she never did a thing to convince people that she was more competent than Trump.  I believed that she presented as someone who was nowhere near up to the job; that was a perception much of the public had of her.  Her boost in polls after Joe melted down in debate only meant that she looked good compared to the guy who melted down, wandered off at pressers, etc.  You can cry "Sexism!" all night long, but even sexists know Hillary knew what she was talking about, policy-wise.

While the campaign did much to cover up the weaknesses, it DID make a few serious flaws.  The biggest one was the failure of Harris to show what she was "turning the page" to; how she would be different than Biden.  Perhaps this was impossible; shifting to a more moderate posture would have looked like a repudiation of Biden, but continuing the leftist posture of the Biden Administration meant that she was the candidate of "no change" and saddled her with positions that she had that Biden adopted that did not have widespread public support.  I believe that those directives came to Harris from whomever ran the Biden White House.  HHH was in that position to, but he made a speech on October 1, 1968 in Salt Lake City, UT breaking slightly with LBJ's war policy and talking about taking "acceptable risks for peace"; this posture sparked a rally for HHH that almost pulled out the election for him.  Kamala couldn't even do that much. 

"In the real world, "single Moms" are often unable to provide for their children, even with child support, and (even worse) are unable to control the behavior (including criminal behavior) of their children (and, especially, their sons).  Of course, in the real world, "single Moms" are often not "single" at all; they're UNMARRIED Moms with a boyfriend who, often, lives with her, but is not always vested in the interest of children not his own." That felt unnecessary to say.

[E-Dawg]

Harris could theoretically have gone places.

"she (Kamala) would be able to appeal well to minorities and young voters and solidify the Democratic coalition of 2012"
What a difference 11 years makes...

[Eraserhead]

Both were bad but Clinton's was worse.

[LBJer]

Kamala ran a good campaign, but she was a really bad candidate. That was obvious in advance. The campaign did their best, but when you have someone with a far-left record, ties to Biden, childless and from San Fransisco, bad at speaking off the cuff, and frankly just a not very intelligent person, there’s only so much you can do.

If not having children is a liability (and Harris is a stepmother, btw), that's on the American public, not Harris.  As is electing someone they knew had tried to overturn a fair election--even inciting violence to do so.

And where do you get that Harris is not "intelligent"?  Compared to who?  Trump?

[Joe Biden 2028]

Easily Hillary. Never went to WI and made only one visit to MI in the last 3 months of the campaign. She lost both states by less than 1%

She also lost PA by less than 1%, but that was her most visited state. She went there more than Obama. So Comey lost her that state along with PA and NC

One thing I can't understand is why she went to Ohio so much. Trump led polls since August and she lost by 8%. It was her 3rd most visited state other than PA and FL. Some of her visits and money could have went to PA

[🥥🌴]

Clinton,

Harris didn't do terrible, i think the environment was simply worse, and that a lot of the issues going on wasn't exactly to blame on her. I think she did allright given the circumstances, but there were a lot of critical errors in the past month and a half, and specifically, i think she was unable to talk enough about policies that mattered to people and that would reach the voters. She was unable to gain control over the issues that mattered to the voters, aside of abortion.

[🥥🌴]

One thing I can't understand is why she went to Ohio so much. Trump led polls since August and she lost by 8%. It was her 3rd most visited state other than PA and FL. Some of her visits and money could have went to PA

With hindsight, Clinton actually did very well in Florida, and could've won it. The problems in Florida for FL DEMS mainly started to exarcebate after 2016. She in particular had a very strong performance among hispanics and in Miami. But it's the WWC shifts (and lack of suburban shifts at that time as seen later in 2018) that cost her that state (and several others).

Clinton also did very well in Philadelphia county, she had a bigger lead than Biden in 2020 there and especially Harris in 2024, but she lost the state outside Philadephia.

Also same for Las Vegas in Nevada, which caused her to win Nevada.

She didn't do well in Detroit though, which is what cost her Michigan because if she does what she did in Philly, Vegas and Miami in Detroit, Trump cannot win that state in 2016. Same for Milwaukee, Harris and Bidens numbers in Milwaukee combined with Hillary rest of state causes Hillary to win Wisconsin in 2016 too.

The two states she could've won are the two states she lost because the cities there weren't as amazing.

That's the result of the two states not being considered swing states in part too. There was a lot more Democratic turnout in those cities possible.

[Brad Note]

Harris was down 24-3 going into the fourth quarter and lost 24-17.

Hillary was up 24-3 going into the fourth quarter and lost 27-24.

[#LANK]

HRC not even close ignoring everything that happened HRC chose her own people Harris got stuck with all of Biden's staff and still had campaign HQ in Delaware and if there's one single thing she did to cost the election it was go on The View and say she'd do nothing different from Biden and Kaine was a worse VP pick than Walz

[Samof94]

Harris was down 24-3 going into the fourth quarter and lost 24-17.

Hillary was up 24-3 going into the fourth quarter and lost 27-24.

Good analogy.

[iceman]

Definitely Hillary. Kamala was destined to lose good campaign or not.

[Roll Roons]

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1807965261003198680
I'm going to say that a campaign run by this person was never going to be good.