• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I was on stage at Javits Center the night Hillary lost

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I've been reading threads on GAF for the last few days and can't believe its already been a week since Hillary lost. I'm not a prolific poster here but possibly as a process of catharsis for myself figured I would post a quick thread and perhaps a short AMA if anyone had any questions. I searched for a thread but only found one that was locked due to name-calling so mods please lock if against TOS etc.

The whole evening was a shit show and truly I think its because the campaign could never figure out if they were going to win or not. They not once ever had strong evidence that they were a lock to win, this was way back from Bernie days, all the way through the general and Trump i.e. Everyone saying they assumed they were going to win is wrong.

I worked for Hillary as a contractor (part of another company) doing FEC related stuff back in 04. Her organization was always top class and professional in a business filled with mean spirited jackasses. This attitude started from the top and Hillary was always a fair, hardworking candidate with minimal entitlement. When everyone else was trying to do unprofessional corrupt stuff her staff were always above board and trying to do everything the right way. Unless she did a massive pivot at some point she was never corrupt in the places that people say she was, fundraising etc.

Someone I know worked close to the very top of the campaign and we talked about things there. They were worried about Bernie once he gained steam because they believed in his message but didn't think it was mainstream enough. Once they got deep into the primary they felt he took too long to concede and to help out the party platform and was damaging the entire delicate structure. I believe this is true and I don't think Hillary would have ended up as 'damaged' of a candidate if she wasn't being attacked from both sides for months.

Once the general came around they never once underestimated Trump, they saw what he did to the Republican field. There was no arrogance just pretty much sheer terror at the fact that their candidate was losing to a person who no previous campaigning rules applied to. Issues didn't matter at all, they tested and tested issue based tactics and messaging in the rust belt to no avail, it was a pure personality battle.

Because of my old job I knew a lot of people at the highest levels who had lots of doubts about her campaign and openly worried she was going to lose months ago. They always saw Trump as formidable. I even worked with some ex-Bernie creatives trying to get some new ideas pitched to their media advisors in early August but it all came up empty because of....yes, the emails.

The emails were the undoing of the campaign. For staffers having everything out in the open made the last months terrible for them. There was a lot of territorial stuff happening and a reluctance to try anything new at all and just rely on the Obama GOTV machine and the supposedly tried and true methods of the past. Of course the emails also had a massive effect on the public perception which is widely written about, but internally is where a lot of damage was done. The pollsters giving her the victory made them rest a little easier but I can confirm they saw their chances as better than 50-50 not any kind of landslide ever.

Ultimately the Javits Center was a room full of hopefuls, true believers, lots of donors and some volunteers, mostly campaign sycophants like me praying that the unease a lot of us felt wouldn't be realized. The aesthetics of the stage was a mixture of races and sexes representing the coalition: think lesbian couple, African American men, latino family, millennial buddies, it was not much fun when we all knew we were going to be up on stage to witness a funeral eulogy, the faces CNN and Fox would zoom in on later in the evening.

A previous closed thread mentioned people being angry that she didn't come out to thank her supporters and concede, anecdotally I 100% disagree. Everyone around me was sad and many moved to tears, campaign workers weren't flinging blame around and there was a genuine sadness for America. Many chants of Love Trumps Hate and disbelief that this could have happened. People wanted to see her but there was a complete and thorough understanding that this was an extraordinary event.

Ultimately I fundamentally believe Hillary is a good, just and exceptional person but as uncharismatic as a candidate as is possible for someone who made it as far as she did in the business (yes politics is business). In campaigns the candidate is queen it doesn't matter what kind of system you put in place if they can't deliver the election win. Her belief that her experience and the fact she believed America would see Trump like she saw him as unelectable because of his views and temperament turned out to be absolutely misguided.

Trump showed that he can win campaigns by annihilating his opposition be it a room full of white men or the most qualified person to ever attempt to run this country. His campaign was terrible, awful in fact but it didn't matter because purely as a candidate he really was the best running this year.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
giphy.gif

I had to.

When you schedule a fireworks spectacular for an election you are out of touch.
 
It could easily be argued that it was less underestimating Trump and more overestimating Clinton in the cases of MI and WI
 
Where in the rust belt did you test this issue based messaging? I live in Licking County in Ohio and saw none of it. Not that it would have made a bit of fucking difference here; this place is Trump country through and through. I still knocked on a couple hundred doors for Hillary and saw lots of people working far harder, so at least you can't say we didn't try.
 
It could easily be argued that it was less underestimating Trump and more overestimating Clinton in the cases of MI and WI

This is very true, I'm sure they weren't expecting the personality battle to lose MI and WI. The polling stats that were received in the months running up to the general made them way too secure unfortunately.
 

guek

Banned
Reads like another absolution of guilt for Hillary and her campaign. If it wasn't hubris that prevented them from course correcting, they sure were tone deaf at the very least.
 
Did you see Hillary, Podesta or Huma or Robby Mook that night?

Nope they were locked away in a war room with Clinton I'm sure, Javits had a lot of staffers though, plenty of communications department people.

anarchy_panty said:
Where in the rust belt did you test this issue based messaging? I live in Licking County in Ohio and saw none of it. Not that it would have made a bit of fucking difference here; this place is Trump country through and through. I still knocked on a couple hundred doors for Hilary and saw lots of people working far harder, so at least you can't say we didn't try.

Issues were tested on digital and broadcast platforms using localized targeting, I'm not sure about specifics. They would ad spend lots of $$ and then run polling against the ad spend and no needles were moved, when they went personality i.e. Trump is a horrible person, they polled better.
 

Nivash

Member
Latest reports say otherwise...


I talked personally to people at the level directly below Podesta and Huma, those are the only reports that I need to hear honestly.

Diametrically opposed statements like these make me wonder at of how quickly and how strongly a narrative forms around events like these, and about which is closer to the "truth". I mean, the argument that they lost due to arrogance makes sense in a way (they always came off as confident and on the attack) but it's also a typical prejudice against elitist liberals. It's a convenient narrative because it's familiar.

The argument that they, on the other hand, were outwardly confident but inwardly terrified and simply couldn't stop the crash even though they saw it miles away is more enticing to me though. It's the inconvenient narrative, and I like those. Most people want to think that smart and powerful people have all the capabilities in the world and can only fail due to corruption or character flaws - especially in politics. I'm personally more drawn to the idea that uncontrollable trends and forces are the true, unthinking drivers of history. That's why I supported Hillary above pretty much everything else. I'm nowhere as scared of what Trump might do according to plan as what he might do due to accident.

The way I'm coming to see it is more in line with what aorange999 describes. The Hillary coalition had all the cards: experience, strategy, competence; a mastery of the conventional campaign. Then, enter Trump: the perfect storm. None of the same qualities but simply the right guy at the right place at the right time to catch the wave that would sweep him into office, and leaving Trump himself more dazed than anyone in the process.
 

remist

Member
After reading about the campaign's "pied piper" strategy I have a hard time believing this narrative. That itself showed dangerous arrogance and incompetence.
 

magash

Member
Reads like another absolution of guilt for Hillary and her campaign. If it wasn't hubris that prevented them from course correcting, they sure were tone deaf at the very least.

Exactly...Hilary Clinton has fucking damaged the Democratic party and she and her ardent supporters need to fucking own up to it. No more of this bullshit excuse that Hilary lost because of Bernie or because of Comey or because of any other useless excuse that can be given. The bottom line is Hilary lost because she was a horrible candidate.
 

Neoweee

Member
Nope they were locked away in a war room with Clinton I'm sure, Javits had a lot of staffers though, plenty of communications department people.



Issues were tested on digital and broadcast platforms using localized targeting, I'm not sure about specifics. They would ad spend lots of $$ and then run polling against the ad spend and no needles were moved, when they went personality i.e. Trump is a horrible person, they polled better.

Thank you very much for this info. That's kind of what I assumed their logic was (I work in Data Science and try to do similar things). Test & Learn, Test & Learn, Test & Learn.

People are going to feel rotten about this election once more details come out about the FBI timing and Wikileaks. Do you feel like a win was very likely without those two effects?
 

Neoweee

Member
So was the polling science really this incorrect? It seems like the data they used did not match up with reality.

A bit of a few things, it seems like. A few point skew in the polls in some states, based on demographics, a few point plummet in the final week of the election that wasn't caught in the polls, and a slight skew in late deciders and undecided voters toward Trump.

National Polls will likely be more accurate than 2012, once all the votes are counted.
 

Putzweg

Member
The staggering moment top DNC staff knew it was over for Clinton was not due to a presidential call, but a down-ballot contest. It was 11:22 p.m. Eastern time when The Associated Press projected the Wisconsin Senate race, a seat deemed a safe pickup for Democrats for most of the year.

They released astounded staff from their positions at campaign headquarters in Brooklyn to head over to the Javits Convention Center at 11:55 p.m. In a sense, they were sending them to the mourning site with the rest of Clinton's hard-core supporters.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...-hillary-clinton-the-election-vs-donald-trump

This article citing many people inside the campaign paints a different picture.

Some of the criticism against the campaign was that the top was isolated, impossible to reach even for higher ranked people and would not listen to any advice.

Interesting thing from the article is also that already at 23.30 PM on election night everyone knew it was over and that the leadership let everyone at the HQ go home at midnight already! Yet it was over 2 hours to go until Podesta held his infamous speech.
 

Draxal

Member
My honest take is that it wasn't hubris and more that Podesta and Clinton thought that she couldn't connect with the rust belters if she had tried, she doesn't have the charisma of a Bill or Obama.

However, the lack of trying and the fact that she went to all those ny and Cali fundraisers was damning.
 
Thanks for the report, pretty interesting. Just out of curiosity, what was the mix like of male/female at Clinton HQ during the campaign and at Javitz during the night? I saw far, far more women then men but it could have just been the photographer focusing on people they wanted to.

Just curious if internal skew biased perceived results. I was 100% sure Trump was gonna lose because I only really talked politics with the women in my family (the guys were all 100% Trump so really not much to talk about) and every single one of them told me women would never vote Trump, so I just sorta assumed "well... 50% of the voters are women, plus the 20-25% minority vote Hillary gets easily puts her over the top". Wonder if that sort of thing happened elsewhere too.
 
My question to you is what can I do (other than voting and volunteering, which I already do) to make sure this never happens again. I am willing to do anything and everything that is necessary.
 
Diametrically opposed statements like these make me wonder at of how quickly and how strongly a narrative forms around events like these, and about which is closer to the "truth". I mean, the argument that they lost due to arrogance makes sense in a way (they always came off as confident and on the attack) but it's also a typical prejudice against elitist liberals. It's a convenient narrative because it's familiar.

OP could be 100% right. I'm just basing my frustration on reports from trusted news outlets. I'm not labeling anyone as "elitist liberals" at all.
 

djkimothy

Member
Thanks for this, it was a great perspective.

Even as a Canadian I supported Hillary through and through. Yes, even above Bernie.

Despite the loss I think she accomplished something special. She stood up to political and social headwinds that not even Bernie would have experienced. That makes her character even more astounding and I hope she becomes a role model to all that she would stand up to the bullies and still press forward.
 
Exactly...Hilary Clinton has fucking damaged the Democratic party and she and her ardent supporters need to fucking own up to it. No more of this bullshit excuse that Hilary lost because of Bernie or because of Comey or because of any other useless excuse that can be given. The bottom line is Hilary lost because she was a horrible candidate.

Yes you are right about the horrible candidate part and if you read what I'm wrote I plainly state that. Where you are wrong is that she damaged the Democratic party, her husband and her and Obama BUILT the Democratic party you know today. Its a coalition, Bernie wasn't part of it until he decided to run for president thats why he could never get that Super delegate vote.

remist said:
After reading about the campaign's "pied piper" strategy I have a hard time believing this narrative. That itself showed dangerous arrogance and incompetence.
On a campaign you will hear a lot about this and that strategy, the number of things flung against the wall in the hope something will stick is crazy. That was probably something emailed between some strategists for sure.
 

Neoweee

Member
On a campaign you will hear a lot about this and that strategy, the number of things flung against the wall in the hope something will stick is crazy. That was probably something emailed between some strategists for sure.

Hence the downside of listening to very selective leaks.
 
So was the polling science really this incorrect? It seems like the data they used did not match up with reality.

This is my problem. The campaign dropped the ball, here. Yes, HRC herself is accountable, but I think that the failures lie mostly on the shoulders of the campaign team and the DNC.
 

TheOfficeMut

Unconfirmed Member
Exactly...Hilary Clinton has fucking damaged the Democratic party and she and her ardent supporters need to fucking own up to it. No more of this bullshit excuse that Hilary lost because of Bernie or because of Comey or because of any other useless excuse that can be given. The bottom line is Hilary lost because she was a horrible candidate.

It cannot and should not simply be chalked up to Hillary being a horrible candidate as to the reason she lost. There were so many factors in this election that were not present in others that contributed to the loss.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by Hillary's ardent supporters being at fault. Are you blaming anyone, including myself, for voting for her?
 

Silexx

Member
This is great insight, so thank you. I think those who think that Clinton was somehow an idiot or ran a bad//horrible campaign need to read this and hopefully realize that they may be falling for outcome bias.

Edit: Juuuuust in case, but I wrote this before I saw your post, Cindi, so this is not meant to be a jab at you at all.
 
Nope they were locked away in a war room with Clinton I'm sure, Javits had a lot of staffers though, plenty of communications department people.



Issues were tested on digital and broadcast platforms using localized targeting, I'm not sure about specifics. They would ad spend lots of $$ and then run polling against the ad spend and no needles were moved, when they went personality i.e. Trump is a horrible person, they polled better.

What they should have tried was both...i.e., the parry tactic. This is what Bernie's campaign would have done. Bernie's policy directives were much more targeted on making the economic reality of poor and working class families better, however (with relation to trade, jobs, and safety net/entitlements). So they would have fared better regardless in these traditional union strongholds.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
Once the general came around they never once underestimated Trump, they saw what he did to the Republican field. There was no arrogance just pretty much sheer terror at the fact that their candidate was losing to a person who no previous campaigning rules applied to. Issues didn't matter at all, they tested and tested issue based tactics and messaging in the rust belt to no avail, it was a pure personality battle.

Not necessarily challenging you, but Hillary's campaign strategy after the last debate and before the Comey letter says otherwise. At that time, in her mind she had already won. It was the Comey letter that jolted the campaign back into campaigning mode.
 
A previous closed thread mentioned people being angry that she didn't come out to thank her supporters and concede, anecdotally I 100% disagree. Everyone around me was sad and many moved to tears, campaign workers weren't flinging blame around and there was a genuine sadness for America. Many chants of Love Trumps Hate and disbelief that this could have happened. People wanted to see her but there was a complete and thorough understanding that this was an extraordinary event.
That fact that it was an extraordinary event is all the more reason that Hillary should have spoken. Its what you look for in leaders.
 

TheOfficeMut

Unconfirmed Member
Bernie's message was good. Hillary didn't have the gut to pick them up or she got too much money from Wall Street.

What? What did she not do to appeal to them?

I'm kind of lost as to what she should have said differently to appeal to them. There were very few things she and Bernie disagreed on.
 
How much crying did you see?

What was the transition like from YAASS QUEEN to oh shit?

Lots of crying, at least say 100 people. Lots of visible sadness. There was never an actual oh shit moment it was more a steady descent into darkness as the numbers came in.


tearsintherain said:
Thanks for the report, pretty interesting. Just out of curiosity, what was the mix like of male/female at Clinton HQ during the campaign and at Javitz during the night? I saw far, far more women then men but it could have just been the photographer focusing on people they wanted to.

Way more women I would say the split was 65% + women at Javits. I went to HQ in Brooklyn a couple of times and would say definitely more women than men not sure of the numbers.This is kind of standard in Democratic campaigns I've worked on, men don't volunteer as much as women do.

Legend of Joe said:
My question to you is what can I do (other than voting and volunteering, which I already do) to make sure this never happens again. I am willing to do anything and everything that is necessary.

You do everything you can do, just being informed and voting in mid term elections is more than a lot of people do. Politics is also about what happens between presidential elections and volunteering and donating to causes that you care about. This presidential superbowl style madness makes me sad.
 

remist

Member
On a campaign you will hear a lot about this and that strategy, the number of things flung against the wall in the hope something will stick is crazy. That was probably something emailed between some strategists for sure.
The email says it is putting to paper what they are already doing. So no it wasnt a random proposal. There's no excuse.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
So was the polling science really this incorrect? It seems like the data they used did not match up with reality.

Eh. I used to work for a polling company. Polling well is really, really hard. The maths behind it is relatively simple - you have something called the central limit theorem, which says that as your sample size increases, the sample mean approaches the population mean; or, as the number of people polled increases, how they say they'll vote approaches how the population says they'll vote. Get a sample size of ~1,000 and you have a margin of error of 3% with 95% confidence - that is, 95% of the time, the sample mean will be within 3 points of the population mean.

But then...

The first problem is if the sample isn't actually randomly selected. Imagine, for example, you don't conduct your polls in Spanish. You can't possibly contact any Spanish voters, so you have a bias in your sample and you'll end up with the voting figures for the population absent Spanish voters, which might be significantly off the real result.

The main way this actually reflects itself for pollsters, though, isn't language. For this election, it was differential response rates. Basically, when we call and say "do you mind if we ask a few questions?", you only get the answer "yes" about 7% of the time. 93% of the time they just say "no" and put the phone down. That means we're not selecting randomly any more - we end up oversampling the sort of person willing to answer the questions and undersampling the sort of person who isn't willing to do, usually the politically interested and the politically disinterested respectively. Unfortunately, these two groups don't vote the same way.

The second problem is dishonesty. There's two sorts of this problem. The first is: will this person vote at all? If I asked 5 people how they'd vote, and 4 said Blue and 1 said Red, but in the election, only Red turned up, my poll would have said 80/20 but the result would be 0/100. And the trouble is: there's absolutely no way to find out what the honest answer is. Some pollsters try asking people how likely they are to vote: for example, are you 7/10 likely to vote? 8/10? and then they exclude all people below a certain bar. Unfortunately, this doesn't work as well as you might expect, because different groups are differently accurate about their self-assessments. A millennial who says they are 7/10 likely to vote is actually much less likely than an older person who says they are 7/10 likely to vote. So the second way you can do it is by demographics - i.e., millennials normally vote at this rate, old people at this rate. But the trouble is that this leaves you massively susceptible to 'revolutionary' candidates, who can mobilize people in previously unforeseen ways.

The second part of this second problem is dishonesty about who you vote for. For example, you might want to vote for the racist candidate, but not want to admit it. So you'll say you're undecided, or you're voting for the other candidate, even though you're not. There's... really no way to do much about this for a pollster.

The third problem is undecideds themselves. If I poll 4 Red people and 3 Blue people and 2 undecideds, everyone thinks the pollsters are saying Red will win. But if all the undecideds swing behind Blue, they'll win 5-4 - and it looks like I was wrong. And because they're undecided, you can't really make any safe assumptions about them.

And finally the fourth problem is 'shock' events - last minute things that make people change their minds in between polls and polling day.

The trouble with this US election is that almost all of these happened at once! And there's really very little you can do about them. The more similar candidates are to previous elections, the better polling works. Obama vs. Romney and Obama vs. McCain? Easy to poll; Obama is obviously the same guy, McCain and Romney similar enough the same assumptions both work. But Trump vs. Clinton? Hard as heck to poll. And despite that, pollsters didn't do too bad. The standard error was about 2.3 percentage points on the national level. That's pretty close! The trouble is that was also the difference between President Trump and President Clinton.
 
I'm a little weirded out by Bernie fans who try to use campaign postmortem talk as a way to try to find restitution for getting yelled at or to express their I-told-you-sos. We should be looking forward for ways to fix the party, and Bernie's movement, message, and focus on the working class are the way forward.
 
Right? And if you blame the campaign suddenly you're claiming to be a political analyst.

Right, that's definitely the leap I was making, I guess I should go work for CNN.

I just don't see the point of this if it's just going to more outward finger pointing, I would have hoped someone more on the inside would have had a more sobering look at the ins and outs, but this is just more blaming anything but what happened on the inside. It has been done to death.

Whatever, though, take me down a few notches, doesn't bother me.
 
Not necessarily challenging you, but Hillary's campaign strategy after the last debate and before the Comey letter says otherwise. At that time, in her mind she had already won. It was the Comey letter that jolted the campaign back into campaigning mode.

I'll say that a candidate is so sheltered from a lot of things that happen in a statewide campaign (senate, congress) that in a presidential I have no clue as to what they were telling her directly. What I know is what the operatives were doing, and thats working their asses off to figure out an equation that they couldn't figure out. Hillary at no point went to a staff meeting and said "We've won guys good work", its always more like "our numbers look good lets keep up the momentum." BTW The only time the campaign took "time off" from the beginning of the meat of the campaign was right after the primary for a couple of weeks and that means they got Sundays off from about 10pm on Saturday until Monday 8am.
 

Nivash

Member
OP could be 100% right. I'm just basing my frustration on reports from trusted news outlets. I'm not labeling anyone as "elitist liberals" at all.

Not aiming this at you personally, just a reflection of how that''s one narrative that seems to be gaining strength and also seems to be popular because it confirms what a lot of people (again, not you personally) already thought. That includes news outlets. As good sources as they are, when it comes to events like these I think we'll never have an actual objective answer because a lot of it is pure opinion and conjecture. The closest we'll get to an accepted truth is probably whatever the historians settle on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom