Shattered Charts Hillary Clintons Course Into the Iceberg Books of The Times By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

[elleng]

'Donald J. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in November came as a shock to the world. Polls, news reports and everything the Clinton campaign was hearing in the final days pointed to her becoming the first female president in American history.

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.'>>>

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

[still_one]

1. What a bullshit hit piece. The media had it in for Hillary from the start, and the NY Times was

right there leading the pack

Nice of them to briefly mention the contribution of Comey, and the Russian interference.

This sure isn't a sympathetic book.

The primaries were essentially over after New York, but the media went on with the horse race

They push the line, "she never reached out to the rust belt", but hardly mention their complicity in propagating "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"

Hillary was leading in all the polls before Comey came out 11 days with the letter to the republicans in Congress, and the good ole "liberal station" MSNBC was the first network to report that the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceed to parade every right wing politician across their screen for the next two hours propagating that LIE. Soon every other news network followed suit with the same f**kin LIE. A few days later Bret Baier broadcast that according to "his sources in the FBI, an imminent indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation. Another LIE, but the other news outlets picked that up quickly too. a few days later Baier came out and apologized saying that there was no pending indictment, and apologized. He was mistaken. Just peachy. The damage was pretty much done then, and the poll numbers reflected it. Hillary completely lost the lead she had.

Even with all that, she might have made it, if the self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, voted for her.

In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and all the other swing states, and it would have made a difference.

but the damage didn't stop there. Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, ESTABLISHMENT, republican

Interestingly, Bernie's endorsements didn't work out too well either:

Russ Feingold lost to Ron Johnson in rust belt Wisconsin. Russ Championed Bernie's platform, opposing trade deals, opposing special interests, promoting a federal minimum wage of 15 dollars, and advocating for debt-free college.

In Colorado, Amendment 69, a measure that would have created a universal healthcare system in Colorado, 80% voted no, and only 21% of Colorado voters supported it

Zephyr Teachout in the 19th district in New York was aligned on almost every issue Bernie brought up. opposed free trade, lobbyists, and campaign finance reform was a central theme of her campaign, yet she lost by 10% in her district.

In California Bernie came out to campaign for Proposition 61, that would mandate that state agencies pay no more for prescription drugs than the US Department of Veterans Affairs pay. It lost by 8%.

In Vermont Bernie endorsed Sue Minter for Governor against the republican. Unfortunately she lost by 8%.

Ted Strickland lost in Ohio by over 20%.

Sorry but everything wasn't so f**king "easy" how these "pieces came together", as the article says.

What is easy to understand is what happened.

The false equivalencies, and the legitimizing of racism, sexism, and xenophobia by the media spoke volumes.

When Chuck Todd said "It's Not the Media's Job To Correct GOP's Falsehoods", or CNN entertaining the question, "are Jews human?", the fourth estate is no longer about accuracy, it is about ratings.

[murielm99]

2. THIS post should be the OP.

[roscoeroscoe]

3. Amen y'all

Well said

[PdxSean]

4. Nice summary.

If I could REC your reply, I would.

[Hortensis]

5. +1000. Reality is America chose Hillary. She won the vote.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. ITA and adding

We are going to have to be willing to let SOME of the votes in the Rust Belt 'go'.

If a person is a bigot and they voted against themselves - they've shown us what they are.

Let them live/die with their choices and the rest of us move on.

[brer cat]

7. Thank you, still_one.

Excellent rebuttal to the bullshit.

[progree]

8. The 78,000 votes in the 3 states, and perhaps Stein didn't cost Hillary the election in WI or PA

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:29 AM - Edit history (4)

[font color = blue]>>In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and all the other swing states, and it would have made a difference. <<[/font]

[font face = courier new]
Wikipedia visited 4/16/17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Trump vote to Clinton vote:

# Pennsylvania: 2,970,733 to 2,926,441 delta = 44,292 (48.18% to 47.46%, delta = 0.72% )
` ` ` ` Stein: 0.81%, Johnson: 2.38%

# Wisconsin: 1,405,284 to 1,382,536 delta = 22,748 (47.22% to 46.45%, delta = 0.77% )
` ` ` ` Stein: 1.04%, Johnson: 3.58%

# Michigan: 2,279,543 to 2,268,839 delta = 10,704 (47.50% to 47.27%, delta = 0.23% )
` ` ` ` Stein: 1.07%, Johnson: 3.59%

# Sum of the 3 states: 77,744 , or about 78,000

----------------------------
Nationwide: Trump 62,984,825 (46.09%) Clinton 65,853,516 (48.18%) Delta (for Clinton this time) = 2,868,691 and 2.09%[/font]

The fallacy of claiming Stein cost Clinton the election in Wisconsin (Trump-Clinton margin: 0.77% vs. Stein 1.04%) is believing that if Stein had not been on the ballot, a net of 74% or more of the Stein voters would have voted for Clinton. Uh uh. Similarly Pennsylvania (Trump-Clinton margin: 0.72% vs. Stein 0.81% -- here a net of 89% of Stein voters would have had to vote for Clinton)

In Florida in 2000, according to one exit poll, only a net of about 26% of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. (When Nader voters were asked who they would have voted for if Nader had not been on the ballot, 47% said they would have voted for Gore, 21% said they would have voted for Bush, and the rest said they would have not voted for either). In another exit poll, only a net of 12% of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore.

Now if someone argued that 3rd party voters cost Hillary the election, I don't have an argument one way or another. Johnson got a heck of a lot more votes than the Trump-Clinton margin.

I just haven't seen anywhere any indication at how Johnson voters would have voted if Johnson was not on the ballot. I saw one article before the election that said Johnson drew more support away from Clinton than from Trump, but I don't know by how much, or even if I believe it.

Back to Florida 2000, just to be clear -- I've argued many times that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028783815#post16

[font color = red]Edited to add:[/font] The Stein campaign of Hillary-hatred may well have caused some to not vote at all who otherwise might have voted for Hillary, and we don't know how big a factor that was (one can't tell from the above numbers), but admittedly it could have been decisive. So I need to edit the rest of the post to get rid of the certainty declarations.

[still_one]

16. The falacy is believing that Jill Stein and her supporters actually care about

civil rights, women's rights, workers rights, and environmental rights. Those rights at risk because of the SC. Like Nader, she went out of her way to tell her supporters that in swing states especially, they should not vote for Hillary

Stein knew exactly what she was doing, and that was insuring that Trump won.

Noam Chomsky tells those who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Donald Trump: "You made a big mistake"

.....

“There are two issues,” he said. “One is a kind of moral issue: do you vote against the greater evil if you don’t happen to like the other candidate? The answer to that is yes. If you have any moral understanding, you want to keep the greater evil out.

“Second is a factual question: how do Trump and Clinton compare? I think they’re very different. I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-a7438526.html

Stein's not going to be hurt by a trump presidency, but a tremendous number people will, among them the most vulnerable in our society.

[PoliticAverse]

17. "Stein's not going to be hurt by a trump presidency" - she even got lots of money for "recounts"....

not all of which ended up being spent for recounts.

[Amimnoch]

10. Now this.. I'd rec.

OP seems more RW talking points, refighting the primary, and Support Democrats misaligned imo.

[George II]

12. Great summary of the election results based on the facts and actual numbers. Thank you!

[NastyRiffraff]

13. Thank you for a reasoned, FACTUAL analysis, still_one

There are all kinds of reasons for Hillary's loss, and they've been well-documented: Russian hacking and election interference, James Comey's unprecedented statement about a (non-existent) investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, voter supression in several states, possible voting machine hacks, etc. etc. A book promoting right-wing talking points does not chronicle legitimate reasons.

[Blue_Tires]

14. +1000

[sheshe2]

15. Magnificent rebutal.

Thank you still_one.

[SunSeeker]

19. Great post. Bookmarking this thread for your post!

The book the OP pushes is a piece of shit.

[Nedsdag]

20. *SIGH!*

There are no words for your post.

[Madam45for2923]

21. Thanks still-one for all this:

still_one (51,297 posts)
1. What a bullshit hit piece. The media had it in for Hillary from the start, and the NY Times was

right there leading the pack

Nice of them to briefly mention the contribution of Comey, and the Russian interference.

This sure isn't a sympathetic book.

The primaries were essentially over after New York, but the media went on with the horse race

They push the line, "she never reached out to the rust belt", but hardly mention their complicity in propagating "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"

Hillary was leading in all the polls before Comey came out 11 days with the letter to the republicans in Congress, and the good ole "liberal station" MSNBC was the first network to report that the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceed to parade every right wing politician across their screen for the next two hours propagating that LIE. Soon every other news network followed suit with the same f**kin LIE. A few days later Bret Baier broadcast that according to "his sources in the FBI, an imminent indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation. Another LIE, but the other news outlets picked that up quickly too. a few days later Baier came out and apologized saying that there was no pending indictment, and apologized. He was mistaken. Just peachy. The damage was pretty much done then, and the poll numbers reflected it. Hillary completely lost the lead she had.

Even with all that, she might have made it, if the self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, voted for her.

In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and all the other swing states, and it would have made a difference.

but the damage didn't stop there. Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, ESTABLISHMENT, republican

Interestingly, Bernie's endorsements didn't work out too well either:

Russ Feingold lost to Ron Johnson in rust belt Wisconsin. Russ Championed Bernie's platform, opposing trade deals, opposing special interests, promoting a federal minimum wage of 15 dollars, and advocating for debt-free college.

In Colorado, Amendment 69, a measure that would have created a universal healthcare system in Colorado, 80% voted no, and only 21% of Colorado voters supported it

Zephyr Teachout in the 19th district in New York was aligned on almost every issue Bernie brought up. opposed free trade, lobbyists, and campaign finance reform was a central theme of her campaign, yet she lost by 10% in her district.

In California Bernie came out to campaign for Proposition 61, that would mandate that state agencies pay no more for prescription drugs than the US Department of Veterans Affairs pay. It lost by 8%.

In Vermont Bernie endorsed Sue Minter for Governor against the republican. Unfortunately she lost by 8%.

Ted Strickland lost in Ohio by over 20%.

Sorry but everything wasn't so f**king "easy" how these "pieces came together", as the article says.

What is easy to understand is what happened.

The false equivalencies, and the legitimizing of racism, sexism, and xenophobia by the media spoke volumes.

When Chuck Todd said "It's Not the Media's Job To Correct GOP's Falsehoods", or CNN entertaining the question, "are Jews human?", the fourth estate is no longer about accuracy, it is about ratings.

[George II]

9. What's the point of this other than taking another gratuitous shot a Clinton's historic campaign?

[still_one]

11. Money. The WSJ also presented their review of the book today, so it is getting its share of

coverage George

[Sparkly]

18. Sales of a "compelling new book."