Support NeoGAF

[Isaac Otherworld]

I said this before the election but I think the constant stream of issues that trump had just got piled up and ignored. Hillary had a few key things that people kept harping on over and over and over. With Trump it was all noise, every day a new scandal, couldn't even focus on anything to attack because he was saying/doing crazy shit every day. Much easier to focus on one or two issues for a political campaign then having an ever moving target of nonsense.

With Trump its the difference between stepping on one nail and stepping on a bed of them. Stepping on one nail has it go through your foot. Stepping on a pile of them doesn't hurt as badly. The scandles hurt him but there's so many of them do quickly it's hard to even focus on them. This was especially the case with cable news.

 

[The Greek Freak]

I agree. Of course she could have done better. She was 70,000 votes away from being President. But then, you know, we also have to acknowledge was only 70,000 votes away.

We also have to acknowledge that even if she had won those 70k votes, it's crazy that both her candidacy and her campaign was such a flaming dumpster that an obese cheeto who can't finish complete sentences was that close.

Obama could have literally stripped naked and shit on the floor during the debates and beaten Trump by millions if Presidents had 3 term limits.

 

[Cybit]

I've already got it checked out from the library. I'm gonna read it regardless.

I've never been a particularly huge Jon Allen fan. Just because he's not a Halperin-level sycophantic hack (I mean, jesus - who is???) doesn't make him not your average beltway access journalist.

Of course he has sources. My point is that whenever you enter the Clinton zone, even moreso than your usual access journalism gossip, everyone's got ulterior motives.In 2014, that was to prop up Hillary (because everyone was angling for a job in the white house). In 2017, that's to point the finger of blame at literally everybody except for themselves. Again, so they can polish up their resumes and stay employed.

It's a beltway tradition. It's the Clinton Circle of Life.

As someone who worked in the 08 and 16 elections - that philosophy is the direct result of the Clintons being that exact way. They do not take blame for their own mistakes very well, if at all, and since they've always prized loyalty, they get people like themselves in the process.

(I dunno if you guys can tell, but I really don't like 1. Clinton books, 2. Beltway access journalism. Hillary's such a boring person! That's her problem!)

She's not boring; but she's convinced herself that even in this election, boring is what would win. There were a couple of times during '08 where we got worried Clinton had figured out that she's really good in small groups and letting her guard down - her "becoming authentic" was the narrative that would have put us in severe danger. But she reverted back to her cautious, guarded self and we breathed a huge sigh of relief.

 

[jtb]

Good point. I don't mean she's a boring person, I mean she's a boring character. For all the endless books written about Hillaryland, the reality is almost always duller than the quasi-machiavellian/lady macbeth fiction that journalists (and readers!) are hoping for.

 

[jack_package_200]

Good point. I don't mean she's a boring person, I mean she's a boring character. For all the endless books written about Hillaryland, the reality is almost always duller than the quasi-machiavellian/lady macbeth fiction that journalists (and readers!) are hoping for.

If she was this Lady Macbeth/Clair Underwoord character people claim she is, she would be president.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or stupidity

 

[Acorn]

If she was this Lady Macbeth/Clair Underwoord character people claim she is, she would be president.

Trump and many others through history kinda destroy that quoted saying. Plus idiocy and malice aren't mutually exclusive.

Not really related to the main argument, that saying just irks me.

 

[Abounder]

You can't have it both ways. She can't have built in advantages and also be a terrible candidate.

For example, why did she have so much money? Because the Clinton's are mega-fundraisers. Why did she have such a toxic relationship with Wall Street and elite money? Because she was in perpetual money-raising mode.

She was an all-time terrible candidate, and an even worse campaigner/leader (remember how vs Obama she joked about Kennedy's assassination, yikes). Great at fundraising from the top .01% but did it way too much during the trail. Still was hers to lose though

 

[TheOfficeMut]

I'll ask again: Is this book recommended, and if so, how accurate is it? I'd be interested in reading accurate depictions of Hillary.

 

[LakeEarth]

I said this before the election but I think the constant stream of issues that trump had just got piled up and ignored. Hillary had a few key things that people kept harping on over and over and over. With Trump it was all noise, every day a new scandal, couldn't even focus on anything to attack because he was saying/doing crazy shit every day. Much easier to focus on one or two issues for a political campaign then having an ever moving target of nonsense.

Straight up "Three Stooges Syndrome". Trump had so many scandals that none of them could get through the door.

 

[shoplifter]

I'll ask again: Is this book recommended, and if so, how accurate is it? I'd be interested in reading accurate depictions of Hillary.

Who's going to actually know how accurate it is that weren't intimately involved?

 

[wesleyshark]

I'll ask again: Is this book recommended, and if so, how accurate is it? I'd be interested in reading accurate depictions of Hillary.

Given the Clinton camp's reaction to it so far, it seems like it's definitely got some legitimacy.

 

[Cybit]

I'll ask again: Is this book recommended, and if so, how accurate is it? I'd be interested in reading accurate depictions of Hillary.

I recommend it, and I think it is pretty accurate (as someone who was on the 2016 campaign in a small sense). The resentment towards Abedin was legit, and there was definitely murmurs of the Podesta / Mook slapfight. But the overall theme of "too many leaders, not enough followers" at least feels pretty accurate.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

Book seems accurate. It's consistent with prior campaign leaks.

 

[etrain911]

Given the Clinton camp's reaction to it so far, it seems like it's definitely got some legitimacy.

Where can one see their reaction to it? I would love to read the book if it is accurate. This entire election will probably be in history books for years to come, unfortunately.

 

[bachikarn]

As someone who worked in the 08 and 16 elections - that philosophy is the direct result of the Clintons being that exact way. They do not take blame for their own mistakes very well, if at all, and since they've always prized loyalty, they get people like themselves in the process.



She's not boring; but she's convinced herself that even in this election, boring is what would win. There were a couple of times during '08 where we got worried Clinton had figured out that she's really good in small groups and letting her guard down - her "becoming authentic" was the narrative that would have put us in severe danger. But she reverted back to her cautious, guarded self and we breathed a huge sigh of relief.

I'm confused about the second paragraph. I thought her being more authentic would be a good thing, and her being boring was bad. Why were you guys happy that she went back to being boring?

 

[Rest]

Isn't Bill O'Reilly in hot water at Fox News? Plenty of folks care when women are mistreated.

How long was he doing it before people took notice? How many decades? What about Bill Cosby? How long has Roman Polanski been a fugitive from justice? Do you remember when he was going to be extradited but then suddenly wasn't for no apparent reason? If a woman is constantly beaten by a man and kills him to protect her self, she will server a longer prison sentence that he would have if he'd murdered her. Society doesn't care about a crime when the victim is a woman.

 

[Neoweee]

I'm confused about the second paragraph. I thought her being more authentic would be a good thing, and her being boring was bad. Why were you guys happy that she went back to being boring?

She's a woman in politics. The band of "acceptable" behavior is substantially more narrow, and being perceived as emotional generally plays worse than the other extreme.

How long was he doing it before people took notice? How many decades? What about Bill Cosby? How long has Roman Polanski been a fugitive from justice? Do you remember when he was going to be extradited but then suddenly wasn't for no apparent reason? If a woman is constantly beaten by a man and kills him to protect her self, she will server a longer prison sentence that he would have if he'd murdered her. Society doesn't care about a crime when the victim is a woman.

Roman Polanski isn't like the others. He confessed as part of a plea bargain, then bounced from the US before sentencing when he thought that the judge & prosecutors were going to go back on the implied deal. Plea bargains are a complete fucking mess, and what he did isn't something that typically gets a person extradited over, as horrible as it may be.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

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 yet all we heard during the campaign was that it was Trump who had skeleton crews on the ground, while Clinton had huge operations. So... was that just not true? I mean, that's not a matter of interpreting strategy in hindsight. Either she had people on the ground or she didn't.

I also wonder about hindsight... If the perfect storm had not occurred, and she had won as everyone predicted, would we be talking now about her wonderful campaign and everything that she did right? Or would we be talking about a terrible campaign that made tons of blunders but somehow won anyway? My gut says the former.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm confused about the second paragraph. I thought her being more authentic would be a good thing, and her being boring was bad. Why were you guys happy that she went back to being boring?

Same reason it's really hard to find a clip of Obama losing his cool and getting angry in a decade of being the most known person in the world, even though Trump loses his cool every other minute. The moment Hillary lost her cool about anything, she'd be as done as she was at the end of her 2008 campaign when she lost her cool about Barack.

Gotta be literally 10000000x as good to get half as much.

 

[Neoweee]

And yet all we heard during the campaign was that it was Trump who had skeleton crews on the ground, while Clinton had huge operations. So... was that just not true? I mean, that's not a matter of interpreting strategy in hindsight. Either she had people on the ground or she didn't.

I also wonder about hindsight... If the perfect storm had not occurred, and she had won as everyone predicted, would we be talking now about her wonderful campaign and everything that she did right? Or would we be talking about a terrible campaign that made tons of blunders but somehow won anyway? My gut says the former.

Yup. There's a pretty extreme hindsight bias that goes into this type of introspection.

The campaign's original conclusion was right: they lost in the final two weeks. If only 6 out of 10 late-deciders went to Trump rather than 7 out of 10, Hillary would have won, and her strategy would have looked immaculate and durable having survived multiple October surprises against her.

Instead, the media went in complete meltdown acting like the Comey letter was the biggest scandal and turn in American political history, and was completely willing to broadcast and misrepresent Russian intelligence services propaganda.

 

[Rest]

Roman Polanski isn't like the others. He confessed as part of a plea bargain, then bounced from the US before sentencing when he thought that the judge & prosecutors were going to go back on the implied deal. Plea bargains are a complete fucking mess, and what he did isn't something that typically gets a person extradited over, as horrible as it may be.

No he didn't, he was put under observation to decide if he was cognizant of his actions and able to be put on trial, when it was decided he was he fled.

 

[Bolivar687]

http://pagesix.com/2017/04/19/hillary-camp-scrambling-to-find-out-who-leaked-embarrassing-info/

I read there's a witch hunt going on in the Hillary camp for whoever leaked a lot of this inside info. People think it's Huma Abbadeenx trying to preserve her credibility as she seeks $2m for her own book she's shopping around.

It's gossip but something interesting also from the book: Clinton apologized to Obama after ignoring his directive to concede

http://nypost.com/2017/04/17/clinton-apologized-to-obama-on-election-night/

"Mr. President, I’m sorry,” she said, according to a Washington Post review of the book due out Tuesday.

The White House urged Clinton to concede as Trump claimed battleground states — some by slim margins — because Obama wanted to avoid a messy recount.

“You need to concede,” Obama told Clinton directly, later repeating the instruction to her campaign chairman, John Podesta, for good measure.

The directive came after Clinton ignored previous messages from White House staff to throw in the towel.

 

[Cybit]

I'm confused about the second paragraph. I thought her being more authentic would be a good thing, and her being boring was bad. Why were you guys happy that she went back to being boring?

She's a woman in politics. The band of "acceptable" behavior is substantially more narrow, and being perceived as emotional generally plays worse than the other extreme.

Because in 08, I was on the Obama team, and her being boring meant we had a much better chance of winning the primary. In 2016 it was frustrating to see that her team (and her) had not learned from their mistakes, even after we had specifically told them about it post 2008.

 

[Fisty]

Being a Bernie supporter and being at a few of his rallies, I knew there were going to be a huge contingent who would refuse to support Clinton. Trump supporters weren't the only ones calling her Killary, and honestly before the primaries I think Clinton was the main target of most of the Bernie supporters, Trump was still a joke candidate at that point.

 

[jack_package_200]

Being a Bernie supporter and being at a few of his rallies, I knew there were going to be a huge contingent who would refuse to support Clinton. Trump supporters weren't the only ones calling her Killary, and honestly before the primaries I think Clinton was the main target of most of the Bernie supporters, Trump was still a joke candidate at that point.

Every time I mosey over to one of the many Bernie Sanders subs on Reddit, its always just slagging Clinton, either Hillary or Chelsea. I can understand hating Hilldawg but what the fuck did Chelsea ever do.

It sucks that fringe ruins it for the majority. Most Bernie supporters aren't misogynistic fuckwits.

 

[EatinOlives]

Being a Bernie supporter and being at a few of his rallies, I knew there were going to be a huge contingent who would refuse to support Clinton. Trump supporters weren't the only ones calling her Killary, and honestly before the primaries I think Clinton was the main target of most of the Bernie supporters, Trump was still a joke candidate at that point.

A lot of Bernie-or-Busters I knew during the election season spent far more time trashing Hillary than they ever did Trump. Not that they supported Trump or that the would vote for him, but while Trump was dismissed off the bat for being crazy and racist, they reserved their longest, most passionate, and most hate-filled rants for Hillary. You could tell they were bothered by Hillary on a deeper, more visceral level than by Trump. Come election day they either didn't vote or penciled in a joke candidate vote.