but, this discussion is built on a false narrative. we start off by supposing that hillary clinton took the high road, and cite obama as evidence (?), then argue that she lost because she wasn't nasty enough.

but, this is ridiculous. in fact, clinton made every attempt that she possibly could to avoid talking about anything of substance, instead focusing almost entirely on trump's personality. one of the first things she did was attack her own potential voting base, calling them 'deplorables', and this set the tone for her own campaign, which was based on trying to find a smear against her opponent that would stick (and getting frustrated when it failed). and, she was just as nasty with bernie, too. and obama.

the miniscule bit of policy she produced was largely ignored because you couldn't believe a word out of her mouth, anyways.

further, many observers have tied these things together and suggested that her total vacuum of actual policy is what had her lose states like michigan, where trump's views on nafta managed to peel off votes by providing a substantive alternative.

i'm not sure if it was decisive, but it no doubt contributed to the loss. and, so, the proper lesson to learn from the last american election is not that clinton lost because she took the high road, but that she lost because she didn't.

i think that so long as wynne says things that are actually true, accusations of 'negative campaigning' are likely to ring hollow. it's not the tone that turns people off, it's the dishonesty you see in a lot of attacks. so, these discussions should really be about dishonesty, rather than tone.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/rhetoric-of-the-ontario-election-go-high/