Comparing normal job functions to getting elected as president is nonsensical.

If we are talking about a persons objective is to get hired and at the end he gets the job it's irrelevant to talk about how he wasn't efficient in how he got through that interview. It would make sense to point out inefficiencies in his interviewing if he failed. Like these are some very basic human principles you're struggling here with.

yeah this captures all government and a lot of private sector behavior lmao

this sounds like narrow thinking. It should matter how they got through that interview for future opportunities, not just with job interviews but even something like promotions.

The objective is to get hired not learn how to go through future interviews. You don't apply for a job because you want experience for future job applications, you apply to get the job.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 8 2019 06:16pm

Comparing to pretty much any modern presidential candidate in the general election his campaign was run pretty terribly. You aren't running a good campaign when you needed every coincidence under the sun to beat a supremely unpopular opponent. He happened to get a lot of favorable things all at once and that's why he succeeded, not because of the efficiency of his campaign.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 8 2019 06:17pm

Those aren't mutually exclusive lmao

He got lucky, true, but you're really underselling the advantages Hillary had. She had a 2-to-1 fundraising advantage. She was backed by the entire Democratic establishment and half of the Republican establishment. She was backed by almost all the media, almost all the cultural and intellectual elites. She had been planning and working towards this campaign for literally decades. She had much more experience with politics and campaigning. She also got lucky/favorable treatment in various investigations into her own misconduct. She got lucky someone broke the Access Hollywood clip, which really damaged Trump and aaalmost brought him down.

Hillary was the overwhelming favorite because she had an overwhelming number of institutional advantages over Trump. Yes, he got lucky, but he needed this luck to make up for her headstart in various areas.


His own deficiencies prevented him from a more convincing triumph, and given the lucky breaks he had during this campaign (Comey etc.), I agree that his campaign wasnt super efficient. But winning the race at all, no matter the circumstances, is still a huge accomplishment when we keep in mind how much of an uphill battle it was for him.

I agree with the bold, he ran an inefficient campaign that ended up being effective.

I don't know man, it doesn't seem like her big advantages really did her that many favors. She has a long history in politics, but that also means she has a ton of dirty laundry that everybody already knew about. Similarly you can't really have extra time to plan during a presidential campaign, you pretty much have to respond to polling data as it comes in. She had a lot of infrastructure already set up though, so there's that. It was also a cycle where "experience with politics and campaigning" was supremely unpopular.

Hillary was the favorite because polling data pre-Comey showed her to be the favorite. There wasn't enough time to gather data and recompile models between Comey's announcement and the election so on election night she definitely did have an inflated chance of success compared to reality.




I don't think any objective observer can call Trump's campaign efficient though, this conversation really just hinges on void's unwillingness to cede that efficiency and efficacy are different concepts.

everyone pretends to forget this

all (D)s and most of the (R) rino loser leadership against him, the entire media apparatus against him (save for parts of faux news and new-gen stuff like dailywire and federalist) running Clinton +12 polls 3 weeks out and saving compromising information to leak whenever it best suited the (D) candidate. then throw in Trump’s ability to create his own problems - this was an even more stacked deck than the rigged (D) primary

e: Trump ended up arguably the most data-driven and savvy information-utilizing campaign alongside Obama’s first election. subtle irony in that

This post was edited by excellence on Oct 8 2019 06:29pm

His campaign won, while dozens of so called 'efficiently' ran campaigns failed. He was called a molester and a racist before the election...yes much favoritism.



Did i say they were?