Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/...hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html

In their compelling new book, “Shattered,” the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write that Clinton’s loss suddenly made sense of all the reporting they had been doing for a year and a half — reporting that had turned up all sorts of “foreboding signs” that often seemed at odds, in real time, with indications that Clinton was the favorite to win. Although the Clinton campaign was widely covered, and many autopsies have been conducted in the last several months, the blow-by-blow details in “Shattered” — and the observations made here by campaign and Democratic Party insiders — are nothing less than devastating, sure to dismay not just her supporters but also everyone who cares about the outcome and momentous consequences of the election.

It’s the story of a wildly dysfunctional and “spirit-crushing” campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) and that failed, repeatedly, to correct course. A passive-aggressive campaign that neglected to act on warning flares sent up by Democratic operatives on the ground in crucial swing states, and that ignored the advice of the candidate’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Party elders, who argued that the campaign needed to work harder to persuade undecided and ambivalent voters (like working-class whites and millennials), instead of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.

There was a perfect storm of other factors, of course, that contributed to Clinton’s loss, including Russian meddling in the election to help elect Trump; the controversial decision by the F.B.I. director, James Comey, to send a letter to Congress about Clinton’s emails less than two weeks before Election Day; and the global wave of populist discontent with the status quo (signaled earlier in the year by the British “Brexit” vote) that helped fuel the rise of both Trump and Bernie Sanders. In a recent interview, Clinton added that she believed “misogyny played a role” in her loss.

The authors of “Shattered,” however, write that even some of her close friends and advisers think that Clinton “bears the blame for her defeat,” arguing that her actions before the campaign (setting up a private email server, becoming entangled in the Clinton Foundation, giving speeches to Wall Street banks) “hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover,” ensuring that she could not “cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country had lost faith in its institutions.”

As described in “Shattered,” Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook — who centered the Clinton operation on data analytics (information about voters, given to him by number crunchers) as opposed to more old-fashioned methods of polling, knocking on doors and trying to persuade undecideds — made one strategic mistake after another, but was kept on by Clinton, despite her own misgivings.

These problems were not corrected in the race against Trump. Allen and Parnes report that Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, was worried in early October about the lack of ground forces in major swing states, and that Mook had “declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign,” despite pleas from advisers in crucial states.

While the article is basically a review of the book, it highlights some important points from it as well. Note that the authors don't seem to be anti-Hillary:

Allen and Parnes are the authors of a 2014 book, “H R C,” a largely sympathetic portrait of Clinton’s years as secretary of state, and this book reflects their access to longtime residents of Clinton’s circle. They interviewed more than a hundred sources on background — with the promise that none of the material they gathered would appear before the election — and while it’s clear that some of these people are spinning blame retroactively, many are surprisingly candid about the frustrations they experienced during the campaign.

That being said, from this review, it's unclear if it talks about Trump's campaign and how it appealed to racist voters. That being said, this book seems like a good documentation of lessons learned and probably as good a post-mortem as we'll get on the campaign. I'm really interested in checking this out now. Has anyone here read it?

 

[guek]

The authors of “Shattered,” however, write that even some of her close friends and advisers think that Clinton “bears the blame for her defeat,” arguing that her actions before the campaign (setting up a private email server, becoming entangled in the Clinton Foundation, giving speeches to Wall Street banks) “hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover,” ensuring that she could not “cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country had lost faith in its institutions.”

Before people get caught up in all the pearl clutching over this, it was Clinton's responses to these relatively benign scandals that was her major failing, not the acts themselves. Of course, a lot of that was incited by the incessant media attention and GOP smearing but she could have shown a lot more tact and humility up front when initially confronted by those issues rather than dismiss them.

 

[Gutek]

That email server, and those darn speeches to Wall Street.

The other candidate copped to sexual assault, but, obviously, that's not a dealbreaker.

 

[PBY]

That email server, and those darn speeches to Wall Street.

The other candidate copped to sexual assault, but, obviously, that's not a dealbreaker.

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

 

[Gutek]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

You're right. If you're racist, a wall and Muslim ban are gonna be your favorite policies. Very clearly laid out to. No dogwhistles anymore.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

Hillary had way more policy papers and in polling it's been clear that her / democratic policies are popular.

 

[Lois_Lane]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

What policy plan? Trump just said shit with no backing whatsoever. He changed his positions every five seconds. People projected what they wanted into the racist orange asshole.

 

[Netherscourge]

I still think Donald Trump's choice of beverage, Diet Racist, won him the election.

Because a whole lot of people in those swing states are drinking it.

 

[Glix]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

I cant re litagate all this again...

But one of them had pages and pages of policy online and the other had vague promises.

So yeah, you're wrong.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

When the "public vs private position" line happened, I knew that he could win, despite the access hollywood tape.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

No matter what there will still be people on here who refuse to accept that Clinton failed to offer a serious message to working class white people, and that it was what did it for her.

 

[Arkage]

A passive-aggressive campaign that neglected to act on warning flares sent up by Democratic operatives on the ground in crucial swing states, and that ignored the advice of the candidate's husband, former President Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Party elders, who argued that the campaign needed to work harder to persuade undecided and ambivalent voters (like working-class whites and millennials), instead of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.

Which is what I've been arguing for continually in political threads, but with seeming constant pushback of "we don't need those kinds of voters, they're racist" platitudes. Angry Hillary supporters are doubling down on an obviously flawed strategy, especially in context of the electoral college demographics.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

No matter what there will still be people on here who refuse to accept that Clinton failed to offer a serious message to only working class white people, and that it was what did it for her.

FTFY

 

[goodcow]

I cant re litagate all this again...

But one of them had pages and pages of policy online and the other had vague promises.

So yeah, you're wrong.

And? She did a shit job selling her policy. It's on her.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

That email server, and those darn speeches to Wall Street.

The other candidate copped to sexual assault, but, obviously, that's not a dealbreaker.

Clinton got a blowjob in the White House, and even then the reports of Trump's sexual assault wasn't proven true or false, the only one we know of is the Access Hollywood tape. People generally don't care about this since nothing actually happened. If anything people liked how Trump handled it.

 

[Aaron]

That email server, and those darn speeches to Wall Street.

The other candidate copped to sexual assault, but, obviously, that's not a dealbreaker.

Yep. It didn't matter what she did. She wasn't the Republican candidate, who can get away with pretty much anything as long as they lie loudly enough.

 

[elrechazado]

Hillary had way more policy papers and in polling it's been clear that her / democratic policies are popular.

Oh, well she had policy papers - those always win elections and convince voters.

Sigh

I cant re litagate all this again...

But one of them had pages and pages of policy online and the other had vague promises.

So yeah, you're wrong.

This is like a meme at this point. A candidate's job is to sell their ideas. Clinton blinders people's only retort to her failure to message is "but she had a website". Great - keep that winning strategy. Elections will always be win by policy papers and websites full of platform proposals.

/S

 

[Glix]

And? She did a shit job selling her policy. It's on her.

Okay.

I think you quoted the wrong post, pal i was responding to the idea that the candidate who laid out their policy clearly, won.

 

[David H Wong]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

Right, which is why Hillary got 3 million more votes.

It's hilarious all of these books examining the disaster of a race when a few key counties swinging the other direction wins her the election and every single book is suddenly about the death of the Republican party.

Let's not go nuts over-analyzing this. She got poor turnout compared to what she should have gotten vs an opponent like this because she's not a great candidate. But she was ahead in the polls and she got more votes on election day. The oddities of the electoral college and the confluence of a whole bunch of other things nudged Trump over the edge. But on election night, Trump's people absolutely thought he had lost.

 

[guek]

That email server, and those darn speeches to Wall Street.

The other candidate copped to sexual assault, but, obviously, that's not a dealbreaker.

To be honest, I actually think Trump handled the access hollywood tape well. I don't think he handled it appropriately insofar as what I'd expect from a decent human being but that aint Trump. He made a very public apology, recognized the inappropriateness of the behavior, and then tried to redirect ire towards Hillary. Of course that shit rings hollow to any one paying the least bit of attention to his horrible antics but it reinforced the "locker room talk" rebuttal in a very straightforward and effective way. Hillary in comparison did not address her email server or wall street speech scandal in nearly as quick or (seemingly) transparent fashion. That she initially denied ever doing anything wrong with her emails really came back to bite her in the ass. With pussygate though, Trump was caught red handed and couldn't deny he had uttered those horrible words so he was forced to address it it head on.

 

[wildfire]

What policy plan? Trump just said shit with no backing whatsoever. He changed his positions every five seconds. People projected what they wanted into the racist orange asshole.

What policy plan?

People projected what they wanted into the racist orange asshole.

You get it in some ways and don't in others.

Trump did have "policy positions" that he stuck to for awhile.


It was those positions which anti-TRump people could cite as terrible for the country even though Trump supporters interpreted it differently.

 

[2Smashed4U]

I do think there is something to the idea that Hillary didn't really nail the clear & concise part of her policy. Having detailed plans is great for people who are engaged politically already. But she didn't have a broad, general idea for people to latch on to.

Obama ran a pretty general focused campaign both times compared to Hillary's. That's always been her style, detail obsessed.

 

[Meowster]

I've been wondering how differently things would be if HRC ended up winning but the rest of the results stayed the same. Basically if the nail biter States had flipped the other way. We lost a lot of states unexpectedly thanks to the unexpected draw of the hate speech of Donald Trump. My state, for example, was supposed to easily go to Chris Koster but went completely in the other direction. I'd like to think that seeing Trump consistently fail alongside his own party can only help Democrats compared to Hillary being roadblocked by Republicans (and likely impeached by their majority) - but Trump seriously scares me. Maybe I am just being naive and optimistic but I have some hope that this will all backfire.

 

[Autoignition]

So who has the "STOP! STOP! HE'S ALREADY DEAD..." gif?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I've been wondering how differently things would be if HRC ended up winning but the rest of the results stayed the same. Basically if the nail biter States had flipped the other way. We lost a lot of states unexpectedly thanks to the unexpected draw of the hate speech of Donald Trump. My state, for example, was supposed to easily go to Chris Koster but went completely in the other direction. I'd like to think that seeing Trump consistently fail alongside his own party can only help Democrats compared to Hillary being roadblocked by Republicans (and likely impeached by their majority) - but Trump seriously scares me. Maybe I am just being naive and optimistic but I have some hope that this will all backfire.

Well, for once this book would have been about shattering the glass ceiling.

 

[Plinko]

Robby Mook is the absolute worst. That guy should be nowhere near any campaign ever again.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm still uncontrollably angry at my country

 

[jchap]

Hopefully the take away is to run the most compelling candidate instead of the person whose "turn" has come.

 

[Autodidact]

Which is what I've been arguing for continually in political threads, but with seeming constant pushback of "we don't need those kinds of voters, they're racist" platitudes. Angry Hillary supporters are doubling down on an obviously flawed strategy, especially in context of the electoral college demographics.

No, Hillary voters didn't give up on shit. Those voters defected and will never return. To them the Democratic Party now represents the "other" - the blacks, the gays, the Muslims, the Mexicans, etc. Why do you think they left in the first place? You can preach economics all you want, but they'll still reject you the moment they realize your policies will also help black people. Hillary voters - and the Dems. in general - haven't excommunicated or chosen to ignore anyone. They have, however, indicated they won't compromise on social justice to appease some bigots who probably still wouldn't vote for them.

But you can keep your narrative.

 

[guek]

I do think there is something to the idea that Hillary didn't really nail the clear & concise part of her policy. Having detailed plans is great for people who are engaged politically already. But she didn't have a broad, general idea for people to latch on to.

Obama ran a pretty general focused campaign both times compared to Hillary's. That's always been her style, detail obsessed.

Despite having the Most Progressive Platform in US History (tm), her campaign message felt focused around more-of-the-same Obama era politics and "Not-Trump."

It's sad that people weren't more motivated by stopping a walking, talking garbage fire like Trump but in general, people get motivated around presidential campaigns because it's the single biggest vote for change you can make as a citizen. That's why running on the status quo doesn't work that well.

 

[kirblar]

No matter what there will still be people on here who refuse to accept that Clinton failed to offer a serious message to working class white people, and that it was what did it for her.

Because relying on those same people who backstabbed us two generations ago and never looked back has worked so well for you over in the UK, right? I think you noted in the Elections thread that the coalition wasn't working. The one in the US is- Trump won because white rural people are massively overrepresented in the Electoral college.

Hillary could have talked about jobs and the economy for days on end and it wouldn't have mattered because one new piece on Colin Kaepernick would undo any amount of work she was able to put in.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Hopefully the take away is to run the most compelling candidate instead of the person whose "turn" has come.

I still don't understand things like this. The people VOTED FOR HER to be the candidate. Nobody "ran her", we all collectively decided she was the best Democratic candidate.

 

[Version 3.0]

instead of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.

Say what now? That contradicts what I kept seeing during the election: that she was "trying to take moderate conservatives away from Trump". The criticism was that she was too far right, not too far left. Even the jokes were along those lines: "Should I vote for the Republican? Or for Donald Trump?".

 

[jchap]

I still don't understand things like this. The people VOTED FOR HER to be the candidate. Nobody "ran her", we all collectively decided she was the best Democratic candidate.

Can you seriously say that the DNC had no preference in the outcome? I think the party's involvement played a role in the outcome of the primary.

 

[megalowho]

The details coming out from reviews of the book paint a pretty devastating portrait of Clinton's inner circle, and her own judgement and campaign instincts in turn.

Here's one from NPR's review:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/524338718/shattered-picks-through-the-broken-pieces-of-hillary-clintons-dream

In fact, the book often dwells on her problematic speech prep. All major politicians have ghostwriters, but Clinton had panels of them. Writers, consultants, script doctors and kibitzers crawl over every page and paragraph of her scripts — sometimes until just minutes before delivery.

Where exactly is the candidate herself in all this messaging mélange? Does she have something she really wants to say? Everyone agrees she has plans for every policy problem in the world, but voters want to know what's inside you. And they also want to know what's in it for them.

Seems like a good read if one has the stomach to revisit it all. Lots of angles and external circumstances covered, with the conclusion being that the worst blows suffered were self-inflicted.

 

[highrider]

It's not even the more policy based reasons, or lack of clear message. I think it's more just her personality, and maybe complacency. I voted for her, but I was never as confident in her as most of my peers were. Even here on the forum you would draw serious heat for even suggesting she wasn't a lock. And Sanders divided many liberal voters. He was my dude.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Despite having the Most Progressive Platform in US History (tm), her campaign message felt focused around more-of-the-same Obama era politics and "Not-Trump."

It's sad that people weren't more motivated by stopping a walking, talking garbage fire like Trump but in general, people get motivated around presidential campaigns because it's the single biggest vote for change you can make as a citizen. That's why running on the status quo doesn't work that well.

In hindsight, I agree. I was all in for Hillary, but she needed a more focused message.

People say Trump didn't have policies. That's not true. They were horrible, impossible to implement policies, but he did have simple , straightforward ideas. Build the wall. Bring back jobs. Bomb ISIS. Ban Muslims.

Hillary wonked out on the other end. Didn't work.

 

[Link]

I still think Donald Trump's choice of beverage, Diet Racist, won him the election.

Because a whole lot of people in those swing states are drinking it.

There was nothing "Diet" about it. That shit was Racist Classic.

 

[The Technomancer]

Can you seriously say that the DNC had no preference in the outcome?

I can seriously say that the DNCs preferences are not enough to explain a 3 million vote deficit in the results. You don't tip the scales that much. Hell, she lost the swing states to Trump by less than five percent of that

 

[2Smashed4U]

Can you seriously say that the DNC had no preference in the outcome?

They had a preference, sure. Doesn't mean that the preference reflected in anything that they actually did besides talk amongst amongselves around the offices, or actually change the outcome of any races.

 

[kirblar]

The details coming out from reviews of the book paint a pretty devastating portrait of Clinton's inner circle, and her own judgement and campaign instincts in turn.

Here's one from NPR's review:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/524338718/shattered-picks-through-the-broken-pieces-of-hillary-clintons-dream


Seems like a good read if one has the stomach to revisit it all. Lots of angles and external circumstances covered, with the conclusion being that the worst blows suffered were self-inflicted.

Clinton is a terrible politician (in terms of running for office, not policy positions) and it was a big issue in '08 and '16. She shouldn't have run again, but no would/could talk her down.

 

[Mimosa97]

This gives me hope that maybe in a few years people on GAF will wake up and start admitting that Clinton is mainly responsible for her loss.

Yes racism played a huge role in pushing people to vote for Trump. Yes in the end Trump voters are responsible for the turd that's sitting right now in the white house. But also yes Clinton blew it.

She had the numbers. She had everything in her hands to win it easily. And she still managed to blew it. So yeah we can either pretend that racism is the only culprit or we can finally admit that Clinton fucked up and people shouldn't feel sorry for her.

 

[kirblar]

There was nothing "Diet" about it. That shit was Racist Classic.

Someone pointed out on Twitter yesterday that this is only going to get worse. With the parties polarized on social issues, it's going to carry less and less of a penalty for the GOP to go full Steve King on this shit.

 

[goodfella]

No, Hillary voters didn't give up on shit. Those voters defected and will never return. To them the Democratic Party now represents the "other" - the blacks, the gays, the Muslims, the Mexicans, etc. Why do you think they left in the first place? You can preach economics all you want, but they'll still reject you the moment they realize your policies will also help black people. Hillary voters - and the Dems. in general - haven't excommunicated or chosen to ignore anyone. They have, however, indicated they won't compromise on social justice to appease some bigots who probably still wouldn't vote for them.

But you can keep your narrative.

It didn't before? Obama is black, and he was voted for twice. People don't always vote based on social issues, in my experience, people mostly vote for the set of policies that they think will make them and their family better off financially.

 

[Suikoguy]

This gives me hope that maybe in a few years people on GAF will wake up and start admitting that Clinton is mainly responsible for her loss.

Yes racism played a huge role in pushing people to vote for Trump. Yes in the end Trump voters are responsible for the turd that's sitting right now in the white house. But also yes Clinton blew it.

She had the numbers. She had everything in her hands to win it easily. And she still managed to blew it. So yeah we can either pretend that racism is the only culprit or we can finally admit that Clinton fucked up and people shouldn't feel sorry for her.

Since you are so sure of this, you will provide some examples of posters doing that. Right?

 

[Black_Sun]

They had a preference, sure. Doesn't mean that the preference reflected in anything that they actually did besides talk amongst amongselves around the offices, or actually change the outcome of any races.

Nah. The media and the DNC did not like Sanders. Count the number of timesthat cable news brought Sanders out to talk during the primary. They wanted to silence him so their prophecized one could win.

 

[Arkage]

No, Hillary voters didn't give up on shit. Those [Obama voters who switched to Trump] defected and will never return.

I think you contradicted yourself within the first two sentences.

 

[MThanded]

In the end - think people didn't give a fuck about who was "worse" but who had a policy plan that was clearly laid out they believed in.

What?

This is a head scratcher.

 

[kirblar]

It didn't before? Obama is black, and he was voted for twice. People don't always vote based on social issues.

He was "One of the Good Ones".

Until he wasn't. (Trayvon Martin.)

 

[The Technomancer]

This gives me hope that maybe in a few years people on GAF will wake up and start admitting that Clinton is mainly responsible for her loss.

Yes racism played a huge role in pushing people to vote for Trump. Yes in the end Trump voters are responsible for the turd that's sitting right now in the white house. But also yes Clinton blew it.

She had the numbers. She had everything in her hands to win it easily. And she still managed to blew it. So yeah we can either pretend that racism is the only culprit or we can finally admit that Clinton fucked up and people shouldn't feel sorry for her.

I mean, this is sort of a weird attitude on that issue specifically. The numbers didn't even place the swing states in danger. When you're a month out and you're up like +8 in Wisconsin or whatever its not immediately obvious to me that your reaction should be "oh shit we're in trouble in Wisconsin, divert resources ASAP"

She made a lot of mistakes, but this election was also shocking to pretty much everyone, not just her team