HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So who's reading "The Des...

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:29 PM

So who's reading "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton"?

Although Susan Bordo's cogent work is not getting the publicity that more gossipy recent releases have garnered, Bordo is an academic who focuses on on gender and cultural analysis rather than unsubstantiated juicy tidbits from anonymous sources.

From her publisher's website:

"Gossip is easy. Get to the deeper truth, with this in-depth look at the political forces and media culture that vilified and ultimately brought down Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

The Destruction of Hillary Clinton is an answer to the question many have been asking: How did an extraordinarily well-qualified, experienced, and admired candidate—whose victory would have been as historic as Barack Obama’s—come to be seen as a tool of the establishment, a chronic liar, and a talentless politician?

In this masterful narrative of the 2016 campaign year and the events that led up to it, Susan Bordo unpacks the Rights’ assault on Clinton and her reputation, the way the left provoked suspicion and indifference among the youth vote, the inescapable presence of James Comey, questions about Russian influence, and the media’s malpractice in covering the candidate."

Anyone truly interested in an honest appraisal of what went wrong in 2016 should check it out. You can read excepts on line or take a peak through the pages at the publisher's website.

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558341/the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-by-susan-bordo/

42 replies, 6155 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply So who's reading "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton"? (Original post)
lapucelle Apr 2017 OP
Kath2 Apr 2017 #1
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #2
DURHAM D Apr 2017 #3
Dawson Leery Apr 2017 #4
lapucelle Apr 2017 #5
Cooley Hurd Apr 2017 #6
jehop61 Apr 2017 #7
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #10
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #9
betsuni Apr 2017 #19
truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #32
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #35
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #14
Skittles Apr 2017 #18
Cha Apr 2017 #21
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #22
Cha Apr 2017 #23
Hekate Apr 2017 #25
LenaBaby61 Apr 2017 #27
Squinch Apr 2017 #36
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #13
lapucelle Apr 2017 #15
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #16
Name removed Apr 2017 #28
SticksnStones Apr 2017 #8
BainsBane Apr 2017 #11
JHan Apr 2017 #12
Skittles Apr 2017 #17
betsuni Apr 2017 #20
Hekate Apr 2017 #24
Post removed Apr 2017 #26
betsuni Apr 2017 #29
LenaBaby61 Apr 2017 #30
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #31
lapucelle Apr 2017 #39
Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2017 #42
truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #33
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #34
Squinch Apr 2017 #37
lapucelle Apr 2017 #38
m-lekktor Apr 2017 #40
lapucelle Apr 2017 #41

Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:37 PM

1. Can't wait to read it.

And Hillary did win the popular vote by millions. Tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:38 PM

2. Yes, she was attacked from all sides.

I will never forgive her primary opponent for calling her unqualified. Then again, he has not apologized nor asked for forgiveness. All of the outrages against her, which by extension are outrages to the majority of voters (she won the popular vote by 3 million) are all being dismissed under the narrative that she was a "flawed candidate." I hope this book does something to dispel that narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:40 PM

3. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:43 PM

4. 2016 is a reminder that both fascists and communists are bad people.

They are the opposite sides of the same coin.

The fringe groups are going after Macron (France) now.
LePen(fascist) Melenchon(communist) are targeting Macron (modern liberal),
now with the backing of Putin/Trump/Fararge/Wikileaks/Snowden/Greenwald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:44 PM

5. At the publisher's website

the "Look Inside" preview includes a timeline that provides a stunning overview of the absolute crap that was promulgated on all sides during the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 02:45 PM

6. She was unqualified in the sense that she didn't campaign in WI or MI...

 

That was a major mistake. I mean, who makes such a mistake in ANY Rust-belt state? I'm still stunned by that mistake...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:06 PM

7. I believe

she visited Michigan several times. She had outreach offices in every state. Few people have the time these days to go to rally's, as well. So they are pretty meaningless. She was everywhere and your statement is not a valid reason for justifying her small loss in the electoral college. Remember Comey and remember the Russians. She lost because there was major interference in our election. Stop with the Hillary bashing. We're sick of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:15 PM

10. Yep. Like I said, she was attacked from all sides.

And continues to be. Even by so-called progressives on Democratic discussion boards. It really is sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:11 PM

9. OFFS. She sure as fuck did campaign in MI.

Just some samplings of her GE campaign events in MI:

http://www.9and10news.com/story/33357929/thousands-attend-hillary-clintons-campaign-rally-in-detroit
http://amp.usatoday.com/story/93356788/

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/93356788/

And as far as WI, polls had her comfortably ahead, and the campaign decided the best use of resourcces was sending in surrogates, including Bernie Sanders, and focusing on the ground game to get those Hillary voters to the polls:

Hillary Clinton’s tack to win Wisconsin has been to stay far away and count on her supporters here — and a historically unpopular opponent — to carry the day.

Increasingly favorable poll numbers suggest it’s working. Clinton’s campaign says it is confident it is closing the sale with Badger State voters, and now is counting on its ground game to get those voters to the polls by Nov. 8.
...
Instead, Clinton’s campaign has held events with surrogates such as her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, is scheduled to visit Madison, La Crosse and Stevens Point on Tuesday.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/hillary-clinton-s-wisconsin-campaign-pivots-from-persuading-voters-to/article_a76c45b5-9d38-5183-a572-3ee8a7213f4f.amp.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:30 AM

19. Thank you for posting this. Every time I see that stupid lie about her not campaigning I

vow to look it up but never get around to it. Now can use this. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:43 AM

32. Self reflection?

 

This is an honest attempt at trying to correct the huge mistakes made in 2016 and fix them going forward. If we, like so many around here, bury our heads in the sand and do as the republicans do on every major issue, that is reject facts and operate with an inability to modify our views when presented with hard data and facts, then we continue to get pummeled in elections that don't have Barack Obama as our nominee.
_______________________________________________________
Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.


SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals.

The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out “the model, the model,” as they complain about it — guiding Mook’s decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation, of course, that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.

“There’s this illusion that the Clinton campaign had a ground game. The deal is that the Clinton campaign could have had a ground game,” said a former Obama operative in Michigan. “They had people in the states who were willing to do stuff. But they didn’t provide people anything to do until GOTV.”


Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end


“I’ve never seen a campaign like this,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic National Committee member and longtime political hand in Michigan who described months of failed attempts to get attention to the collapse she was watching unfold in slow-motion among women and African-American millennials.

Rollins, the chair emeritus of the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus, said requests into Brooklyn for surrogates to come talk to her group were never answered. When they held their events anyway, she said, they also got no response to requests for a little money to help cover costs.

Rollins doesn’t need a recount to understand why Clinton lost the state.

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to higns, also left and never looked back.

Most importantly, multiple operatives said, the Clinton campaign dismissed what’s known as in-person “persuasion” — no one was knocking on doors trying to drum up support for the Democratic nominee, which also meant no one was hearing directly from voters aside from voters they’d already assumed were likely Clinton voters, no one tracking how feelings athe race and the candidates were evolving. This left no information to check the polling models against — which might have, for example, showed the campaign that some of the white male union members they had expected to be likely Clinton voters actually veering toward Trump — and no early warning system that the race was turning against them in ways that their daily tracking polls weren’t picking up.

People involved in the Michigan campaign still can’t understand why Brooklyn stayed so sure of the numbers in a state that it also had projected Clinton would win in the primary.

“Especially given what happened in the primary,” said Michigan Democratic Party chairman Brandon Dillon. “We knew that there was going to have to be more attention.”

With Clinton’s team ignoring or rejecting requests, Democratic operatives in Michigan and other battleground states might have turned to the DNC. But they couldn’t; they weren’t allowed to ask for help.

State officials were banned from speaking directly to anyone at the DNC in Washington. (“Welcome to DNC HQ,” read a blue and white sign behind the reception desk in Brooklyn that appeared after the ouster of Debbie Wasserman Schultz just before the July convention).

Nor did Brooklyn ask for help from some people who’d been expecting the call. Sanders threw himself into campaign appearances for Clinton throughout the fall, but familiar sources say the campaign never asked the Vermont senator’s campaign aides for help thinking through Michigan, Wisconsin or anywhere else where he had run strong. It was already November when the campaign finally reached out to the White House to get President Barack Obama into Michigan, a state that he’d worked hard and won by large margins in 2008 and 2012. On the Monday before Election Day, Obama added a stop in Ann Arbor, but that final weekend, the president had played golf on Saturday and made one stop in Orlando on Sunday, not having been asked to do anything else. Michigan senior adviser Steve Neuman had been asking for months to get Obama and the first lady on the ground there. People who asked for Vice President Joe Biden to come in were told that top Clinton aides weren’t clearing those trips

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

Ex. B-

As the Washington Post reported, Clinton’s campaign and outside groups supporting it aired more television ads in Omaha during the closing weeks than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. And as NBC News reported, during the final 100 days of the election, Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87.



Ex. C-

A senior official from Clinton’s campaign noted that they did have a large staff presence in Michigan and Wisconsin (200 and 180 people respectively) while also stressing that one of the reasons they didn’t do more was, in part, because of psychological games they were playing with the Trump campaign. They recognized that Michigan, for example, was a vulnerable state and felt that if they could keep Trump away—by acting overly confident about their chances—they would win it by a small margin and with a marginal resource allocation.



https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/report_neglect_and_poor_strategy_helped_cost_clinton_three_critical_states.html


Trump won Wisconsin by 1 point, or fewer than 30,000 votes. Clinton did not visit the state once after the Democratic convention, and neither did President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, as the Huffington Post notes. “The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee,” the site reported.
*********************************************************

Whether it's denying climate change on the right or denying the neglect and outright horrible strategy of the Clinton team, ignorance is ignorance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:18 AM

35. See my response to your duplicate post below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:55 PM

14. this is false

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:23 AM

18. see, how is that EVEN YOU believes that garbage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:37 AM

21. Hillary sure as Fuck wasn't "unqualified"! That's Bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:02 AM

22. Maddening isn't it Cha? She was THE most qualified candidate ever to run.

And yet people continue to grasp at straws to justify calling her "unqualified."

No, nothing sexist here. Move along now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:07 AM

23. Yes Hillary was the most Qualified Candidate ever

to run.. that's why they attacked her strengths.. and are still doing it.

Transparent as glass..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:29 AM

25. So now that you've read all the links provided that show your error...

...you're going to apologize and never repeat that misinformation again, right?

Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:55 AM

27. "She was unqualified."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:50 AM

36. You're STILL believing the lies Republicans want you to believe? And still SPREADING them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:54 PM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 06:20 PM

15. All candidates are flawed. They're human beings.

This was the first time we set the standard of "flawless" for any candidate, an it was required from one candidate only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:08 PM

16. Yep. And it wrongly implies her "flaws" are what caused her to lose.

When in fact it was sexism and sabotage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #2)


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:08 PM

8. Media malpractice. That sums it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:50 PM

11. I'll look for a kindle version

Thanks for posting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:51 PM

12. I'm gonna get it because this sort of analysis is necessary to understand last year ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:22 AM

17. they have NOT destroyed her

THEY NEVER WILL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:33 AM

20. Putting it on my book list. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:25 AM

24. About time. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:55 AM

29. Hubris, e-mails, Establishment, status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 03:04 AM

30. Hilarious 1st post ...

Especially this part:

Hubris was the reason why she lost.

Yeah, because we know that tRumputin is the most humble, sweet and nice person every to be installed into the presidency with the help of russia, the GOP WikiLeaks, deplorables voting, etc. to attack a gold star Mom (Mrs. Khan).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 03:14 AM

31. Zapped already. That Troll didn't even try to be subtle. The Putin troll farm is slipping.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:44 AM

39. What does "posting privileges revoked" mean?

Did I miss something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:06 AM

42. It means they are gone. Out of here. Banned. Barred.

They shall not pass.

They cease to be an active poster.

Destroyed.

Humiliated.

Humbled.

T'was their hubris which brought them down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:46 AM

33. Self reflection?

 

This is an honest attempt at trying to correct the huge mistakes made in 2016 and fix them going forward. If we, like so many around here, bury our heads in the sand and do as the republicans do on every major issue, that is reject facts and operate with an inability to modify our views when presented with hard data and facts, then we continue to get pummeled in elections that don't have Barack Obama as our nominee.
_______________________________________________________
Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.


SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals.

The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out “the model, the model,” as they complain about it — guiding Mook’s decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation, of course, that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.

“There’s this illusion that the Clinton campaign had a ground game. The deal is that the Clinton campaign could have had a ground game,” said a former Obama operative in Michigan. “They had people in the states who were willing to do stuff. But they didn’t provide people anything to do until GOTV.”


Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end


“I’ve never seen a campaign like this,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic National Committee member and longtime political hand in Michigan who described months of failed attempts to get attention to the collapse she was watching unfold in slow-motion among women and African-American millennials.

Rollins, the chair emeritus of the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus, said requests into Brooklyn for surrogates to come talk to her group were never answered. When they held their events anyway, she said, they also got no response to requests for a little money to help cover costs.

Rollins doesn’t need a recount to understand why Clinton lost the state.

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to higns, also left and never looked back.

Most importantly, multiple operatives said, the Clinton campaign dismissed what’s known as in-person “persuasion” — no one was knocking on doors trying to drum up support for the Democratic nominee, which also meant no one was hearing directly from voters aside from voters they’d already assumed were likely Clinton voters, no one tracking how feelings athe race and the candidates were evolving. This left no information to check the polling models against — which might have, for example, showed the campaign that some of the white male union members they had expected to be likely Clinton voters actually veering toward Trump — and no early warning system that the race was turning against them in ways that their daily tracking polls weren’t picking up.

People involved in the Michigan campaign still can’t understand why Brooklyn stayed so sure of the numbers in a state that it also had projected Clinton would win in the primary.

“Especially given what happened in the primary,” said Michigan Democratic Party chairman Brandon Dillon. “We knew that there was going to have to be more attention.”

With Clinton’s team ignoring or rejecting requests, Democratic operatives in Michigan and other battleground states might have turned to the DNC. But they couldn’t; they weren’t allowed to ask for help.

State officials were banned from speaking directly to anyone at the DNC in Washington. (“Welcome to DNC HQ,” read a blue and white sign behind the reception desk in Brooklyn that appeared after the ouster of Debbie Wasserman Schultz just before the July convention).

Nor did Brooklyn ask for help from some people who’d been expecting the call. Sanders threw himself into campaign appearances for Clinton throughout the fall, but familiar sources say the campaign never asked the Vermont senator’s campaign aides for help thinking through Michigan, Wisconsin or anywhere else where he had run strong. It was already November when the campaign finally reached out to the White House to get President Barack Obama into Michigan, a state that he’d worked hard and won by large margins in 2008 and 2012. On the Monday before Election Day, Obama added a stop in Ann Arbor, but that final weekend, the president had played golf on Saturday and made one stop in Orlando on Sunday, not having been asked to do anything else. Michigan senior adviser Steve Neuman had been asking for months to get Obama and the first lady on the ground there. People who asked for Vice President Joe Biden to come in were told that top Clinton aides weren’t clearing those trips

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

Ex. B-

As the Washington Post reported, Clinton’s campaign and outside groups supporting it aired more television ads in Omaha during the closing weeks than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. And as NBC News reported, during the final 100 days of the election, Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87.



Ex. C-

A senior official from Clinton’s campaign noted that they did have a large staff presence in Michigan and Wisconsin (200 and 180 people respectively) while also stressing that one of the reasons they didn’t do more was, in part, because of psychological games they were playing with the Trump campaign. They recognized that Michigan, for example, was a vulnerable state and felt that if they could keep Trump away—by acting overly confident about their chances—they would win it by a small margin and with a marginal resource allocation.



https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/report_neglect_and_poor_strategy_helped_cost_clinton_three_critical_states.html


Trump won Wisconsin by 1 point, or fewer than 30,000 votes. Clinton did not visit the state once after the Democratic convention, and neither did President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, as the Huffington Post notes. “The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee,” the site reported.
*********************************************************

Whether it's denying climate change on the right or denying the neglect and outright horrible strategy of the Clinton team, ignorance is ignorance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:14 AM

34. So you care about the facts?

Your Politico piece notes in MI "the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals." A lot of people, smart politically adept people, assumed she was doing fine and did not require heroic measures. That's what the polls said. Hillary herself did campaign in MI.

To ignore what truly killed her in the last days, namely the unanticipated disaster that was Comey's release of that letter, is to be much more akin to climate change deniers than anyone in Hillary's campaign. Ignorance is indeed ignorance.

Unlike the effect of Russian interference on the 2016 presidential campaign, the effect—in votes—of the now-infamous “Comey Letter” is knowable. 

While various media outlets downplayed the effect at the time, the hard data is unmistakable: according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll taken immediately after FBI Director Comey’s end-of-October announcement that the FBI would be reviewing additional evidence in the Clinton email-server case, one-third of likely voters reported that the revelation made them “much less likely” to vote for Clinton. 

In an election Clinton lost by just 77,143 combined votes in three states—out of well over 136 million votes cast—this sort of polling data is one indication that Comey’s announcement could have cost Clinton millions of votes nationwide. But looking inside the Politico/Morning Consult data, we find much more evidence for that conclusion: specifically, the fact that while 26% of the poll’s 33% figure comes from Trump voters, the remaining 7% comes from those reporting to be Clinton voters. 

So it’s clear the Comey Letter was more than enough—as a matter of math—to put Trump in the White House.
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bigger-than-watergate-concerns-grow-that-anti-clinton_us_5850bb12e4b0b662c2fddebc



Hillary did add additional campaign stops in MI and other battleground states in those final days when she saw how much damage the letter was doing. http://amp.usatoday.com/story/93356788/ But the damage was too much to overcome in the few days she had left. Comey's letter was the perfect sabotage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:51 AM

37. Wow. That's stark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:29 AM

38. I worked the ground game as a volunteer

in a battleground state weekends in September through October. I put more faith in what I and hundreds of others actually participated in and witnessed first hand than in anecdotes three times removed.

Senator Sanders was working on a tight deadline to complete his book as per contract for release on November 9. Once he was available, he scheduled more appearances.

As for Rollins, she was a vocal Sanders supporter who urged the Senator to stay in the race into June and spoke openly against the press characterization of Clinton as the "presumptive nominee" well after it was determined that it was mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the primary.

Rollins's actions and public statements in Michigan were used as a GOP talking point during both the primaries and the general election campaign to stoke division and reinforce the false "we were robbed" narratives among the BoBs. Those talking points are surmised to be one of the reasons for Stein's strong showing in the state.

It is no accident that Wikileaks included stolen communication concerning Ms Rollins in their pre-convention release in an attempt to further stoke any Michigan infighting. The emails revealed that it was made clear to the campaign that Rollins was not to be contacted directly, but only through a liaison. There were gaps in what Brooklyn communicated and the intermediary reported. Ms. Rollins was badly served, but not by the campaign. Even Mrs. Obama made an appearance with Rollins in early October to try to assuage hurt feelings.

It's easy to be a keyboard warrior who never actually does any of the hard work involved in a campaign, just as it is easy to cut and paste a morass of disjointed stuff that sorta supports a narrative you're interested in flogging. Those of us who were really involved know better.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:58 AM

40. The New Republic's Sarah Jones trashed it in a review and basically said it

tells of a Hillary that doesn't exist so I will pass on it for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 09:31 AM

41. Sarah Jones?

Isn't she the millennial feminist who also trashed Hillary's "simpering brand of feminism"?

I'm not surprised to see deflection from Jones. No one likes to be called out for trying to straddle the hipster fence, and Bardo's analysis of their role in Trump's win is uncomfortably honest.

"Violence against women is not culture; it's not custom, it's criminal."
Senator Clinton defending her feminist views as consistent with the State Department's mission during her SOS confirmation hearings.

Simper away, Madam Secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread