‘Shattered’…The story of how Hillary Clinton LOST AGAIN….

I have REPEATEDLY emphasized here at the PDog the fact that Hillary Clinton NEVER liked campaigning….

Hillary Clinton put it off for as long as she could each time she ran …

And that Hillary Clinton lacks the basic political sense of feel that her husband, George Bush, Barack Obama and Yes…Even Donald Trump has….

Image result for hillary Clinton

Despite her negative’s though?

She WAS able to beat Trump by almost THREE MILLION votes last November….

Everyone agreed that Clinton WAS qualified to BE President….

But that is only part of the deal….

Ya gotta win the job, and on her second try?

Hillary Clinton lost AGAIN….

(No ONE could say with a passion that they wanted to vote her)

This time by less than a 100,000 votes out of roughly 130,000, 000 votes…..

The underlying problem ‘Shattered ‘ points out is….. Her misteps from her 2008 try…. Were still there in her 2016 run,  8 years later….The authors lay the blame mostly on Clinton….

CreditPatricia Wall/The New York Times

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.

In fact, the portrait of the Clinton campaign that emerges from these pages is that of a Titanic-like disaster: an epic fail made up of a series of perverse and often avoidable missteps by an out-of-touch candidate and her strife-ridden staff that turned “a winnable race” into “another iceberg-seeking campaign ship.”

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.

“Our failure to reach out to white voters, like literally from the New Hampshire primary on, it never changed,” one campaign official is quoted as saying….

More…

Hillary Clinton image….politifact.com

Share on Facebook

37 thoughts on “‘Shattered’…The story of how Hillary Clinton LOST AGAIN….”

  1. “Qualified” is a relative term, but no, millions of Americans, such as myself, did not think she had the right qualifications to be President. Even her supporters could never point to any actual accomplishments.

    And now, this has nothing to do with her being a woman. I wish a qualified woman was President today and no, I do not think her Republican opponent was more “qualified.” I voted against him too.

    This book is said to show massive dysfunction in her campaign with tremendous amounts of infighting in staff and overconfidence and hubris, as well as Bill Clinton being a massively disruptive force. All of these things were said to have been put aside from her 2008 campaign and made different for 2016, but if this book is true, that was apparently not the case.

  2. Why is this even being discussed?
    Hillary was a flawed candidate.
    The emails and investigations were of her own doing. No one ever denied that crimes were committed,terrible things written,and dirty tricks revealed;the emails were real and they should have been exposed.
    Now,we know that tbe Democrats were concerned for months before the election and were looking desperately for a way to stop Trump.
    Meanwhile,the national Press was spinning all of the news to make it sound like Hillary’s corronation was just a formality.
    The unknown and unexpected was the fact that a LOT of people were fed up with Washington.
    Almost ANY outsider could have beaten Clinton, and it looks like the Democrats are on target to lose again.
    They are spending all of their time and effort,blaming,making excuses or trying to derail Trump.
    How about offering some ideas?
    Why not think about the country,our economy,our safety,our educational system,our infrastructure etc?
    Donald Trump listened to what people were saying and promised to do what they wanted.
    Hillary’s whole message was,”Trump is bad”.

  3. But an’outsider’ like Sanders could NOT?….

    Trump gave his base what they wanted and he STILL LOST the OVERALL vote by MILLIONS….

    Upon getting in office he has revereted to several points of view almost identical to Clinton….

    I seperate the campaign from the governing part…

  4. Has the available pool of voters been expanded between Clinton and Sanders to include more Independents, he most certainly would have beaten her for the nomination.

    She won (fairly in my estimation) because of states that had closed primaries.

  5. Oh, and the Superdelegates obviously helped contribute to her nomination win tremendously too. I think we can agree those are not exactly “regular voters.”

    I wish Republicans would have had a process in which Superdelegates had so much power. We’d have a better President today and Hillary apologists wouldn’t have to be burdened by explaining that she won the popular vote in defeat.

  6. If Chris is more than a post-and-run contributor hitting as many sites as he or she can Google or Bing, then Chris should know that almost none of the regulars here — many of whom have always been rather critical of Hillary Clinton — think that the e-mails showed actual crimes of any note (much as the Kremlin and Donald Trump would like us to believe the contrary).

    What crimes were they ?

  7. She WON because DEMOCRATS voted for her…

    IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CG….

    The media narrative that it is the catch all party simply is NOT TRUE…

    AGAIN…

    Sanders’s guy Ellisson LOST to Perez for the DNC Chair and it wasn’t even close…

    The review points to Clinton mistakes NOT to Sanders…

    AGAIN….

    Hillary Clinton BEAT Trump by MILLIONS of votes…

  8. Anybody see the Super Delegates going anywhere?

    I don’t….

    It is the Democratic party….

    In 2008 the Super’s moved to Obama when they knew he was the one…

    The whole Super’s thing is oversold…

    last year the Super’s did exactly what they where designed to do….

    Cement the party together…

    Trump had a fight going internally up to and past election day…

    Better President?

    Apologists?

    Nope…

    Fact tellers…

    Trump STILL hasn’t gotten over his loss….

    And less people showing up in Wash DC for him…

  9. And had more Independents been allowed to vote in the primaries and had superdelegates/politicians not had so much weighted power, Sanders would have beaten Clinton.

    The point is that Clinton beating Sanders for the nomination (as incredibly flawed as he is) has no bearing on her weaknesses as a general election candidate. The fact that she got more votes than someone like Trump isn’t exactly a great accomplishment either. Maybe they shouldn’t have refused to poll in the final days (as the book is said to claim) and maybe she should have spent less time in Chappaqua and made a visit or two to Wisconsin or Michigan.

    Ellison lost to Perez for DNC Chair, and then they made Ellison #2, so obviously, the DNC thinks they need to cater to the Sanders folks.

  10. And the “Superdelegate” rules are not very democratic.

    I say this as someone who wishes the Republican Party would have been a bit less “democratic” in order to prevent the nomination from someone who stands in contrast with what the Republican Party is supposed to represent.

  11. Crimes?

    CRIMES?

    A guy and friend’s where about to sell out his country to the Russians and you mention CRIMES?

    What about the ‘T ‘ Word?

    And this ain’t over…

  12. Not Democratic????

    What about the electoral college?????

    In any other election in America Hillary Clinton WOULD BE the President!

  13. The Electoral College selected by voters in a general election (besides being in existence since the drafting of the Constitution) is easily more “democratic” than the weighted Superdelegate process in the Democrat Party or closed primaries.

    But as private institutions, I think parties should be able to do whatever they want in selecting candidates.

    But let’s be honest about what it is. Clinton showed tremendous vulnerability in the primaries which foreshadowed her failure in the general election. There are a ton of reasons why Sanders was not feasible, which is why she was able to fend him off, but as I said back in 2015, had Elizabeth Warren run against Hillary, instead of Sanders, Hillary would not have been nominated.

  14. In any other election Hillary would be President? That’s a really odd point, but I will humor you and say that actually no, that’s not the case. Had she run for Vermont Governor and gotten a plurality, she could have lost too.

  15. And in many, many general elections across the country, a 48-46 result would have brought about the need for a run-off.

  16. In regards to Hillary’s emails (which the Russians had no business involving themselves with), I guess I need to point out that we do not know what was said in all of the ones that were destroyed or deleted. She seemed to be trying to hide something.

  17. Let’s be honest…

    ALL candidates post wins and loses in primaries…

    THAT is why they have them…

    But she won the nomination…

    THAT IS A FACT….

    Bernie Sanders in the end isn’t a Democrat…

    THAT is a FACT…

    Warren has CONSISTENTLY turned down running for President…

    Your conclusion on her is a guess not fulfilled…

    While I understand WHY the electoral college is part of the process and Clinton lost there…

    It STILL robs America of electing its President as a DIRECT reflection of the will of it’s majority of voters in an election…

    If you want to do the guessing game?

    I believe Sanders would have NEVER beaten Trump in the popular vote and will NOT be the 2020 Democratic nominee…

  18. Come off it with Hillary’s emails….

    The FBI or certainly the NSA HAD to have seen some of them…

    Childs play in relation to the ongoing Trump investigations by how many organizations?

  19. And don’t bring up the Susan Rice bull shit either…

    Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dems and Republicans

    A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News….

    More @ http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/susan-rice-did-nothing-wrong-say-both-dems-republicans-n747406

  20. Trump WAS successful in selling misdirection bull shit for over a year ….

    It worked enough to get him the electoral college win….

    It has also come back to bite him and will give Democrats something (A LOT) to run against next year and in 2020…

  21. His approval numbers are STILL BELOW 50%….

    And that will handicap those GOPer’s who carry him on their backs in Blue and even Purple States…

    Heck, it may be a probable in some Red States!

  22. Elizabeth Warren is a freshman Senator who declined a Presidential run one time. Same as Hillary did in 2004. Considering Warren’s age, 2020 may be her last best chance, so I expect she is likely to run. When she does, you can join me in talking about why she should not be President.

    I can try to understand why you have not gotten over the 2016 election. It wasn’t my favorite either, but the apologisim is not going to change what happened.

    As you know, I think very little positive thoughts of Donald Trump but I actually believe that if Hillary were President today, her job approval numbers might be slightly below where Trump is at the moment. For better or worse, he has people that actually like him and trust in him to a greater extent than Hillary ever has.

  23. Could Sanders have beaten Trump?

    I go back and forth on that, but I lean towards no. He would have been portrayed as a dangerous radical. However, it says a lot about today’s Democrats that an unapologetic Socialist like him represents the heart and soul of the party and was able to connect far better than Hillary Clinton.

    As we all know, Trump has a myriad of issues, which caused people to not want to vote for him, and I still find it mind-boggling that anyone could actually want him to be President. So, Hillary got more votes than him. I thought she would get a lot more than she did.

    What I do believe is that in a universe where Republican primary voters had not lost their minds, a traditional Republican such as a Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio would have beaten Clinton somewhat comfortably and added the popular vote for good measure.

  24. There are arguments for scrapping the Electoral College and there are arguments for keeping it. All we can agree upon is that it has been around since the founding of the Republic and that everybody who has ever run for President in a general election has attempted to win based upon it and have succeeded or failed with the Electoral College uppermost in their strategy. 2016 was no different.

    If we were to get rid of the Electoral College (which will not happen anyway), I just know that all the complaints that people have about Presidential politics and the influence of money, media, etc. etc. would only increase tenfold.

  25. Warren has kept saying she won’t run….

    I believe her…

    Few of us have gotten over the 2016 surprise..

    Clinton’s numbers might or might not be anywhere near Trump’s…

    But the WHOLE PLANET would sleep better if she was back in the White House…

  26. Obama said that. Hillary said that. Get real.

    She gave a tv interview today in which she apparently left it open as a possibility more than she has previously. She is going on a book tour now. You know how it goes.

    Why in the world wouldn’t she run? She has absolutely nothing to lose.

    I disagree the planet would be “sleeping better.”

  27. No argument that Clinton needed to win BOTH the vote and the Electoral college…

    I doubt there will be any dropping of the requirement…

    Ten fold?

    Let’s see?

    Texas
    Florida
    New York
    Pennsylvania
    Illinois
    Georgia
    Michigan
    Ohio

    Just campaigning in the above states get ya to 200 EV’s….
    Add a few states and you are in…

    Notice something?

    Yea…
    They ARE almost ALL Blue states!…

    The little states are moved to be irrelevant…

    Hence the Electoral College isn’t going ANYWHERE!

  28. Trump won six of those eight, so maybe they aren’t as “blue” as you think.’

    And there would be far less campaigning in general. Just a lot more fundraising and tv ads.

  29. The problem for Dem’s was Obama won almost ALL of them…Hillary lost them

    As I have pointed out the Democrats lost due to economics….

    A 2020n and 2018 push for the matter couldshould bring those state’s back to Democrats…

  30. Hillary had and has an attitude problem.

    It’s called being a snoot.

    Pardon me for being alive.

    Deplorables my arse!

    Trump is the King!

  31. Wow…Manilla Nailed it for me…Snoot…Great Point Manila…I don’t ever think until this moment I could pin down the exact reason I didn’t like her, but snoot works for me…

  32. I just finished reading Shattered this morning.

    Needless to say, rather depressing reading for a Democrat, a socialist or anyone else who detests the currently sitting President.

    One of the main conclusions is one that’s revived recently with Hillary Clinton’s own comments this week: she can blame many people and many things for her loss but cannot bring herself to blame herself or her family circle.

    Jonathan Allen’s and Amie Parnes’ book has many virtues (and Bernie Sanders hardly escapes Scot-free) but it does get bogged down in its main topic, the internal politics of the Clinton campaign.

    This means that it discusses around twenty different people in five or six different groups (communications, fund-raising, etc.), which most readers —including me— don’t have the patience to sort out clearly (who the hell, for example is the frequently-appearing “Benenson” and what exactly did he do or fail to do?). Either a photo section or a glossary/directory at the front or end (or both) would have helped greatly.

    An hour or two after finishing it, I also realize that it doesn’t discuss what I (perhaps tediously) have been saying here is one of the main themes that gave rise to both left-wing populism (Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn in Britain) and far-right “populism” (Trump, Bannon, Nigel Farage, the Le Pens). It is also a non-personal reason for widespread Clinton fatigue.

    That is what seemed to be the failure of Clinton-Blair Third Way politics, a political and intellectual movement that seemed to be riding high in the 1990’s. Apart from the Clintons and Tony Blair, there were parallel figures or movements in France (François Hollande), Germany (Gerhard Schroeder), Italy, Canada (among both Liberals and New Democrats), Australia and New Zealand.

    Moving traditional left-wing and left-of-centre parties away from close affiliation with trade unions and the post-war welfare state, the Third Way tried, as the name implies, to steer a middle course that encouraged enterprise and markets without a Thatcherite-Reaganite destruction of vital health, education and social welfare programs or an abandonment of health and environmental regulation.

    In Britain and the United States, at least, it also—reflecting genuine popular sentiment— included tough policies on military defence and police powers (“law and order”). [The latter, to me, seems ironic for three liberal attorneys from élite law schools who certainly understood the finer theories of due process and civil liberties: Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.]

    But this programme ultimatelly crashed on two rocks: the bursting of the Internet Bubble (reflecting a much longer-term end to the Long Boom after 1945) and George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

    And among American liberals and minorities, many of Bill Clinton’s once-successful policies became very unpopular: for example, NAFTA, No Child Left Behind (allied with charter schools), reiniventing welfare, the Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and an anti-crime/anti-drug law that greatly increased mass incarceration.

    And it was incredibly difficult for Hillary Clinton, so closely allied to and identified with her husband’s record and policies, to divorce herself from them in the 2016 campaign.

    Although Shattered does mention almost all of these items individually, it doesn’t really even try to formulate the different overall philosophies behind the thoughts and statements of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

    ¶ And, yes, I do want to see a similar book about Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Even though I favoured him over Clinton for the nomination, I certainly had my share of criticism for his campaign (many of these doubts being ones I expressed here at the time).

    For example, when was he (as the Clinton campaign constantly asked) going to come up with realistic funding proposals ? Or a coherent defence policy (though it was certainly more coherent than Donald Trump’s or Dr Jill Stein’s) ?

Comments are closed.