Source: CNN

Everyone seems to have a strong opinion about why Hillary Clinton lost.

Clinton herself -- as explained in her new memoir "What Happened" -- puts blame on her campaign, the news media, former FBI director James Comey and WikiLeaks. Donald Trump tweeted this morning that "Crooked Hillary" was simply a "bad candidate."

And now Stan Greenberg, the man who served as the lead pollster for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign (and Al Gore's 2000 campaign) has written a long essay titled "How She Lost" that slams Clinton (and her campaign) for a series of messaging, tactical and broader strategic errors.

Greenberg concludes: "For me, the most glaring examples include the Clinton campaign's over-dependence on technical analytics; its failure to run campaigns to win the battleground states; the decision to focus on the rainbow base and identity politics at the expense of the working class; and the failure to address the candidate's growing 'trust problem,' to learn from events and reposition."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/23/politics/stan-greenberg-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbCNNp092317stan-greenberg-hillary-clinton0323PMVODtop&CNNPolitics=fb


The video is worth a look as well...

Reposted from LBN because I was outside the 12 hour mark.

Source: CNN

Everyone seems to have a strong opinion about why Hillary Clinton lost.

Clinton herself -- as explained in her new memoir "What Happened" -- puts blame on her campaign, the news media, former FBI director James Comey and WikiLeaks. Donald Trump tweeted this morning that "Crooked Hillary" was simply a "bad candidate."

And now Stan Greenberg, the man who served as the lead pollster for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign (and Al Gore's 2000 campaign) has written a long essay titled "How She Lost" that slams Clinton (and her campaign) for a series of messaging, tactical and broader strategic errors.

Greenberg concludes: "For me, the most glaring examples include the Clinton campaign's over-dependence on technical analytics; its failure to run campaigns to win the battleground states; the decision to focus on the rainbow base and identity politics at the expense of the working class; and the failure to address the candidate's growing 'trust problem,' to learn from events and reposition."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/23/politics/stan-greenberg-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbCNNp092317stan-greenberg-hillary-clinton0323PMVODtop&CNNPolitics=fb

---

The video is worth a look as well...

Most Democrats still like both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, but few want to see either run for president again, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds.

...

Democrats and Democratic leaners say by a 10-point margin, 49 percent to 39 percent, that Clinton was not the party’s best option for a nominee last year. Fourteen percent say she was mostly to blame for Trump’s victory, with 37 percent calling her somewhat at fault, 24 percent saying that she’s not very much at fault, and 16 percent saying that she’s not to blame at all.

Looking forward, just 20 percent want to see Clinton run for president again, but 47 percent say they’d like to see her remain active in politics in other ways, while 23 percent want her to retire. Thirty percent want to see Sanders take another stab at the presidency, with 46 percent preferring him to engage in other facets of politics, and 12 percent wishing he would retire.

Both the “Clinton wing” and “Sanders wing” of the party ― defined as those who view one of those politicians positively, but the other negatively ― are relatively small. A 54 percent majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view both Clinton and Sanders favorably, according to the poll. Sixteen percent like Sanders but not Clinton, while 12 percent like Clinton, but not Sanders. Another 6 percent hold a negative view of both.

More at link... but not much. Posted here as it is outside the LBN time limit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-president-democrats_us_59c16e6ce4b087fdf508ba6a?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics#

Just saw her on Fox and it looks like she's suffering from some sort of partial face paralysis.

Seriously, fuck this shooter. If he hated em so much why give them the greatest political gift they could imagine.

Norms are out...

Precedent is out...

Public pressure is out...

So anyone who thinks that Mueller is safe is not paying attention.

The biggest thing I've learned in the last year or so is how many things we take for granted and assume they are part of the law but are really just social norms.

Taxes, firings etc.. Etc...

Is it possible to codify these in the future or do we have to assume that anything that isn't explicitly illegal is fair game?

After nearly five months, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) will present his investigative report to lawmakers during a members-only gathering at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters Thursday night.

But members are not allowed to have copies of the report and may view it only under the watchful eyes of DCCC staff.

Some Democratic lawmakers and staffers think the cloak-and-dagger secrecy is overblown and actually makes the findings look worse than they are. But the DCCC is sticking by its strategy.

“Like any healthy organization, the DCCC always works to evolve and grow after each election cycle, and we were happy to have Congressman Maloney as part of that effort this year,” spokeswoman Meredith Kelly said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/27/house-democrats-2016-autopsy-237710?cmpid=sf

In addition to answering the needs of the base but with full knowledge that Gorsuch will go through in any case.

Rules get changed and now you only need a majority (51).

Do you believe that the party leadership is banking on the fact that they will take control of either the Senate or House in 2018 and block any further appointments?

It's a calculated risk because if they don't gain either one then the next nominee can be even more to the right than this one.