How She Lost…By a Hillary Clinton campaign insider….

Image result for clinton loses election night

A good piece that points to how Hillary Clinton misjudged handling her campaign and a confirmation that she simply does NOT have the political feel for how people are doing in America….

The piece also spotlights a recurring problem for the former Senator…

Her inability to let go of those she trusts, when others are telling her things that might be true, but counter’s her inner circle….All that and Clinton’s feeling that she WOULD win and couldn’t lose, something that ALSO triped her up back in the 2008 Democratic nomination race…

She had the problemn in 2008 and it cost her, and in the piece linked below, we  she also repeated the same mistake AGAIN last year…

She DID actually win one of the TWO contests last November…..

She won the popular vote, which would have been enough for any other election in America….But she lost the second contest that gives the prize…The Electoral College vote…And the Job…..

Hillary Clinton’s tragic 2016 campaign faced withering criticism in the press, social media, and now, in Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s inside account, Shattered. From my vantage point as lead pollster for the Democratic nominees in 1992 and 2000, part of the closing clutch of pollsters in 2004, and invited noodje in 2016, I have little quarrel with the harshest of these criticisms. Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy. So did the handling of the email server, paid Wall Street speeches, and the “deplorables” comment. And her unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence left her exposed to attacks first by Bernie Sanders and then by Donald Trump and unable to offer credible promise of change.

Yet the accounts of Hillary Clinton are very incomplete, miss the reasons for her ambivalence, and miss most of the big structural forces at work that made it hard for her to commit to a different path. That is where we learn the most about the progressive debate ahead….

The campaign relied far too heavily on something that campaign technicians call “data analytics.” This refers to the use of models built from a database of the country’s 200 million–voters, including turnout history and demographic and consumer information, updated daily by an automated poll asking for vote preference to project the election result. But when campaign developments overtake the model’s assumptions, you get surprised by the voters—and this happened repeatedly.

Astonishingly, the 2016 Clinton campaign conducted no state polls in the final three weeks of the general election and relied primarily on data analytics to project turnout and the state vote. They paid little attention to qualitative focus groups or feedback from the field, and their brief daily analytics poll didn’t measure which candidate was defining the election or getting people engaged.

The models from the data analytics team led by Elan Kriegel got the Iowa and Michigan primaries badly wrong, with huge consequences for the race. Why were they not then fired? Campaign manager Robbie Mook and the analytics team argued, according to Shattered, that the Sanders vote grew “organically”—turnout was unexpectedly high and new registrants broke against Clinton. Why was that a surprise?

Campaign chair John Podesta wanted to fire Mook, but Clinton stood by him. She rightly admired previous campaigns in which big data and technology were big winners, yet in 2008 it was the candidate and his appeal more than the technical wizardry that pushed Obama over the top. David Axelrod told me that analytics adds a “great field-goal kicker”—no substitute for a strategy and compelling message….

The malpractice grows exponentially with their failure to focus like a laser on winning each target primary or battleground state. Rather than shifting resources and media buys across states based on the analytics’ projection of cost per delegate or voter, they needed to focus on how to win each must-win, winner-take-all state. That meant more distinct state strategies, focus groups, and state tracking polls right to the end.

The campaign’s approach senselessly and increasingly drove up Trump’s margin in white working-class communities, tipping Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The analytics model built around these assumptions was so simple-minded it portended disaster. Despite overwhelming evidence that the Democratic base wasn’t consolidated or excited, the campaign believed Trump’s tasteless attacks and Clinton’s identification with every group in the rainbow coalition would produce near universal support. Thus, they stopped trying to persuade voters and measured only the probability of support for Hillary. The campaign’s task was turning out those Clinton voters, and they fell frustratingly short….

Much More….

image….dailymail.co.uk

Share on Facebook

15 thoughts on “How She Lost…By a Hillary Clinton campaign insider….”

  1. Personally, Im over Hillary Clinton and the continuing “analysis” of the election.

    Should have won.

    Didn’t.

    Have consistently pointed out that a change of1% of the vote on three states she would have won.Accordingly,one can cite almost anything as the “reason” she lost.

    Others here want to rehash it over and over and over and over…..

    Hillary Clinton takes her place with Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and John Kerry as a failed presidential candidate.She will hold the distinction of being the first woman to be nominated by a major political party for the presidency,a not insignificant historical note.

    Except for that,in my view,it’s past time to let this thing finally go.

    1. I, on the other hand, think is is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to understand how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote , but lost the election….

      One hopes that whoever the Democratic nominee UNDERSTANDS the focus and actions that are need to win the Electoral College vote…..
      NOT JUST the popular vote….

      1. Presidential elections we now see are two seperate contests….

        You can win with BOTH….

        But only ONE counts….

        The guys who made up the rules did NOT trust the Popular vote….

        It appears in this day and age that might be a mistake…a BIG one.

        That said?

        The system isn’t gonna change…

  2. I fully understand it.

    She lost because she very narrowly lost three states and that can be explained by any number of reasons and anyone can make an argument for “their” reason.

    Indeed,on several occasions you have said that you agreed with that.

    So what exactly is it that you are trying to “understand?”

    1. I still agree with your view that it was several reasons that come together….

      I am ALSO putting out those who don’t understand what YOU of course Know….

  3. Well I’m sure the “uneducated” amongst us appreciate your efforts.

    My view though is that everyone here “gets” it.

    I reiterate,

    It’s past time to let this thing go.Hillary Clinton will get her historical note.She is not,however, of any significance moving forward and the semi weekly “discussions” here about her are repetitive and boring.

      1. And she has a LOT more support out there then the media wants to show….

        After all?

        She DID beat Trump’s vote by millions, eh?

  4. I don’t care if she “goes away” or not.

    Lots of people don’t go away.

    The point is she is no longer a factor in national politics.

    Al Gore won the popular vote too and quickly faded from the scene as one of national influence.

    Maybe you want her to be.I don’t know.Well, she’s not.

    Anyway I’m moving on .My focus is getting rid of this idiot now occupying the White House not this continuing rehashing of lasy years election.

    So,knock yourself out.

  5. Of course part of the reason Hillary Clinton has remained in the spotlight longer than previous failed nominees is that the Republicans and their President keep bringing her up.
    Yesterday there was an Hispanic Festival I’m in my neighborhood and at the booth for the St. Louis City Republican Party featured no pictures of Trump, but disparaging ones of Clinton. But hey at least they showed up. Reoublican candidates rarely crack 20% in the city and the party often doesn’t even field candidates for local races. At last summers Pride Fest they had a card table set up and a hand lettered sign but no one even manned it.

  6. Yeah – once Hillary completes her book tour, I don’t see her remaining in the limelight. Democratic Presidential candidates will take her place, and if Republicans focus on Hillary, it will only make those candidates stronger.

Comments are closed.