Slashdot Mirror


Hillary Clinton Rips 'Bankrupt' DNC Data Operation (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article: Hillary Clinton slammed the DNC's 2016 campaign data operation Wednesday, saying she had "nothing" to work from once she won the nomination. She lamented that Donald Trump was able to walk into a well-funded and thoroughly-tested data operation, while she was forced to build hers largely from scratch. Axios conducted over two dozen interviews with experts associated with the Trump and Clinton data and advertising operations earlier this year, and while many sources agreed with this sentiment off the record, no campaign or DNC staffers used language as strong as Clinton did Wednesday to publicly to condemn the DNC's data enterprise. Further reading: "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," says Clinton.

34 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Wipes her server with a cloth by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now she is a data scientist ?

    The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.

    1. Re:Wipes her server with a cloth by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow....I"m just amazed that she can't come to grips with the base fact that she was NOT a good politician, doesn't have a good public personality, and the charisma of a small soap dish.

      Her husband, was one of the best politicians ever....for some reason she cannot fathom that she is the polar opposite of that.

      I grew up in AR with her as first lady of the state, and she was just as dislikeable (sp?) then as now. This is nothing new for her.

      But I guess...ego won't allow for true self exploration, and she's having to try to blame everything and everyone external to herself to get through this.....

      She can't deal with the fact that she is not a beloved person like her husband was (to a very broad swatch of the US), and even to an extent Obama was to her party.

      After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.

      I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.

      Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Wipes her server with a cloth by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does this negate the fact that the DNC needs to review their Data Analytical operation? After all, practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

      Well, I'd think any smart political party, would conduct a Data Analytical operation review each year, to learn from previous year, as that things are in constant change.

      And it wasn't just the DNC that predicted her easy EC win...look at most all of the talking heads on TV, and most all polling companies....they had it wrong too.

      What they didn't see and didn't take into account, were the folks that had been somewhat silent in past election years, those that aren't out shouting loudly about this social justice or this inequality....but lower-middle and lower income workers, that have seen and continue to see their jobs and way of life being ripped away from them. Yes, they may often be heterosexual caucasian too (hey, not that there's anything wrong with that)....and they see all the whoopla about every other minority, or possible category of sexual preference being elevated constantly in the discussions, and they were basically tired of being not only ignored, but in many ways persecuted for being what would previously been termed as "normal white American working families".

      I also think that the liberal hive mind that is centered primarily in the northeast and far west of the country, somehow assumed that pretty much everyone in the US saw the country and path to the future exactly as they did, with little if any meaningful numbers of people disagreeing with them. I think this may also be due, somewhat, to what we see with the progressive side constantly shouting down more conservative speech....and this has been going on in a more subtle manner on the national news scene for decades now, so that you never really saw much conservative speech or opposing conservative thoughts on mainstream media, and hence...when you don't see it, you assume it isn't there at all.

      I think many of these general thoughts were large contributing factors for many of the polling elite missing a hidden undercurrent of scorn for the more liberal progressive agenda being pushed.

      And also...perhaps no one wanted to admit, that Hillary is just NOT a likable person, much less a charismatic candidate. Many assumed her coronation would be just that...that it was manifest destiny for her to be president.

      This also kinda blinded them that not everyone thought that way.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Wipes her server with a cloth by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

      It wasn't just the DNC, it was just about every poll out there. Trump didn't have a chance. There is a video montage of all the people saying "Trump will never be president". All of them MSM, and DC inbreds, not just the DNC and Hillary campaigns.

      The stunned pundits from NBC to CNN and heck, even FOX was surprised. The data people everywhere failed. Except Trumps, who spent time and money on states he was pretty much "wasting" his time and effort on, states he won.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Wipes her server with a cloth by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials"; they HAD three out of four with Sanders. Many people just "gave up" when he was pushed out, especially the Millennials; who actually now outnumber the boomers in numbers of voting-age people. Sanders would have been a radical change as well, but in the opposite direction of Trump / Clinton. Unfortunately, much of the US electorate aren't educated enough to comprehend "socialist democrat" != "communist" and would be completely bewildered by a European-style system that has dozens of different parties, platforms, etc. We in the US have been conditioned to only work with two parties...so it's "us" vs "them" with nothing possible in-between. The parties often switch sides, absorb any break-aways, etc. With a winner-take-all system, the math just ends up with only two parties.

  2. Re:Delusional by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.

  3. It's all in a slogan by PackMan97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary. One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice. His "I understand your pain" approach in 1992 was as brilliant as Hillary's 2016 campaign was stupid.

    1. Re:It's all in a slogan by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary.

      To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah." Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re: It's all in a slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't you remember? The dems hate the common people. Oh wait, just the white common people.

      If you're ignorant, dumb and white, bad.

      If you're ignorant, dumb and dark, that's not your fault !

    3. Re:It's all in a slogan by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The vast majority of Trump voters were in reality voting against Clinton, not for him.

    4. Re:It's all in a slogan by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well.

      The difference is the "Me, Me, Me" message resonated with Trump supporters.

      The "I'm with Her" message lost the people that believed more in "Stronger Together".

      Trump did not win the election, Clinton lost it. Specifically Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states went to Sanders in the Primary and in the General saw a massive dive in DNC votes and a massive uptick in 3rd party votes. Johnson went from 8k to 172k between 2012 and 2016 in Michigan, That's not anything other than people going "Fuck Clinton".

      State | Year | Green | Libertarian | Democratic | Republican |
      Michigan | 2008 | 8,892 | 23,716 | 2,872,579 | 2,048,639 |
      Michigan | 2012 | 21,897 | 7,774 | 2,564,569 | 2,115,256 |
      Michigan | 2016 | 51,463 | 172,136 | 2,268,839 | 2,279,543 |
      Wisconsin | 2008 | 4,216 | 8,858 | 1,677,211 | 1,262,393 |
      Wisconsin | 2012 | 7,665 | 20,439 | 1,620,985 | 1,407,966 |
      Wisconsin | 2016 | 31,072 | 106,674 | 1,382,536 | 1,405,284 |

      I broke down which states would have flipped based on what percentage of additional 3rd votes would have gone to a candidate other than Clinton:

      100% | 75% | 50%
        Arizona | Florida | Michigan
        Florida | Michigan | Pennsylvania
        Michigan | Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
        Pennsylvania | Wisconsin
        Wisconsin

      So if you assume half of the votes 3rd party candidates picked up between 2012 & 2016 would have gone to anyone but Clinton the democrats would have picked up PA in addition to MI and WI. If they were 75% they would have added Florida.

      [I tried with the formatting but Slashdot doesn't like 'junk' characters, even in code blocks]

    5. Re:It's all in a slogan by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every Trump voter I know was voting for him. They might have held their nose to vote for Jeb Bush if the Republican Establishment had managed to get him the nomination, but many would just have stayed at home if Trump wasn't the nominee.

      That's not to say they wouldn't have preferred a different candidate, but he was the only one standing who they could get enthusiastic about.

    6. Re:It's all in a slogan by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

      But that isn't exactly how the Presidential Elections are counted, and Hillary didn't campaign except in states that she was winning, securing the ... popular vote. Trump dumped a ton of money, and spent time in rust belt talking their language, and Hillary was avoiding the public like the plague it was with her health issues.

      In the end, a lot people felt less uncomfortable with Trump than with Clinton, especially in key states, and that led to the stunned media / DC complex on Election night. Watching Wolf Blitzer try and find "votes" on the big board for Hillary was comedic gold.

      But yeah, it was the Russians hacking the elections and Trump Collusion and DNC data people and* ...

      Notice, it was never Hillary being a terribly flawed candidate, caught cheating with the DNC, MSM against Bernie, and hiding out trying to coast in for the win.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:It's all in a slogan by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

      It's something a lot of Tea Partiers, etc., believed due to Obama being President.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:It's all in a slogan by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ding, ding, fucking ding. We have a winner.

      I didn't LIKE voting for Trump, but there was no fucking way in hell I was going to vote for Hillary....

    9. Re:It's all in a slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're wrong. Completely. I know several of these Trump supporters, and it's selfish. Nothing to do with making America great, it's about #1 (themselves).

    10. Re:It's all in a slogan by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once again, most Americans claim they are exceptional, and live on the greatest nation in the world, yet most have never travelled outside the US, so their uneducated opinion counts for nothing. But that's a common flaw among the American people, they believe that if they say it, is it true. They don't ever let facts get in the way of a good opinion.

      • The U.S. is Number 1 in defense spending
      • The U.S. is Number 1 in the cost of health care
      • The U.S. is Number 1 in abortions of all the developed countries
      • The U.S. is Number 1 in medical bankruptcies
      • The U.S. is Number 1 in prison populations per capita
      • The U.S. is Number 1 in small arms ownership

      [What makes America the greatest country in the world?] It's not the greatest country in the world! We're seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, No. 4 in labor force, and No. 4 in exports. So when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

      -- Aaron Sorkin

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/03/21-maps-and-charts-that-prove-america-is-number-one/

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:It's all in a slogan by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure you did. Clinton was awful, but she was no worse than any of the Presidents we've had since before her husband took office. She was the victim of a 25 year old smear campaign, but unless you were asleep you wouldn't have missed that, and you would have taken into account the fact the recent talking points against her, about emails and Benghazi, were so shaky they'd been rejected even by Republican congressional committees.

      Meanwhile, Trump was clearly a fraud. You knew about Trump U. You knew about the spate of bankruptcies. You knew about his ripping off suppliers. And at the same time, for all Clinton's post-Bush-I New World Orderish/Neo-conservatism, Trump was actually acting like an actual fascist - he was scapegoating vulnerable minorities for America's problems, and he was actually, directly, encouraging violence against protestors and claiming he'd abuse the law to lock up his political opponents.

      And he was doing so completely openly.

      You're saying that Trump vs Clinton was some difficult vote where Trump wasn't ideal, but Clinton was just so bad? Bullshit. You voted for Trump because you wanted Trump. Maybe you wanted to watch the world burn, I don't know, but you had enough information at the time to know that Clinton, while bad, wasn't anything like as terrible as her detractors pretended, and that Trump was one of the worst candidates ever to run a democratic nation that tries, for all of its faults, to be a beacon for freedom and democracy across the world. You voted for a low rent Mussolini to prevent a low rent still-better-than-Dubya from taking office.

      Don't pretend otherwise. Nobody voted for Trump reluctantly. If you're voting for lesser of two evils, you're not voting for Trump.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:It's all in a slogan by wyHunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it started under Bush, though not as organized. The 'libertarian wing' hates the 'business as usual' Republicans as much as Democrats.

    13. Re:It's all in a slogan by larryjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

      Most Americans view the greatness of America in the context of the current quality of their own standard of living. Unfortunately over the last several years, many Americans have struggled to maintain their standard of living and for them, America (i.e., their perception of the part of America that they most clearly see) stopped being great. This economic struggle has been particularly challenging for many Americans who don't read slashdot and haven't necessarily benefited from the uptick in the tech industry.

    14. Re:It's all in a slogan by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with your line of thinking is that you're saying she should have blatantly lied about policy choices in order to win. "Change" is/was not what the US needs, despite a vocal minority shouting at the top of their lungs. We've seen the projections for "change" over the last 8 months - 24 million Americans losing health insurance, regulations lowered or removed altogether on financial institutions and environmental pollution, weakened security due to willful ignorance and insults aimed at our allies.

      The so-called "liberals in the big city" are doing well because they're adapting to, not fighting against, economic reality. The stagnation you mention in the rust belt has nothing to do with Obama, or "elitist liberals", or the ACA. It has to do with the economic realities of a 21st century global economy. I'm truly sorry if coal mining is no longer a viable means of supporting your community, but economic and political isolationism isn't the answer. Investments in education and subsidies for emerging markets (like clean energy) are the only real way to avoid the collapse of the rust belt. Unfortunately the GOP is doing its best to undermine both, while making entirely unrealistic promises to their base, like "we'll bring back coal".

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    15. Re:It's all in a slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was seen waving rainbow flags and talking about protecting gay rights during his speeches. I did not find this out until after he was elected. I realized we were only watching spliced speeches on most news outlets, which shouldn't have been surprising.

    16. Re:It's all in a slogan by judoguy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And yet, people from all over the world immigrate here as hard as they can.

      About half the friends I spend time with are legal immigrants from England, France, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Cuba, etc., etc.

      Gosh, what a bunch of dumb asses not to be able see this country as clearly as you!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  4. This would explain by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why she didn't campaign in the rust belt. They thought they had a lock on it. That said, as far as I can tell the Republican listened to Nate Silver and the Dems did not. That's what cost her the election.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. but you didnt win the primary. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    she had "nothing" to work from once she rigged the nomination.
    FTFY.

    but in all seriousness, this is the kind of petulant bitching I abhor in a statesman. Its the kind of whining you expect to hear from a deep-seated, dynastic candidate with lots of connections and money but limited charisma, tact, and insight. Hillary lost the election because she was a turd of a candidate that avoided red states and rural populations where she refused to send any message. Instead she concentrated on playing the numbers and winning by electoral college votes in big blue cities. Rural and suburban voters outside of these areas saw her as disconnected and disinterested in things like systemic unemployment, drug crises, and healthcare. She was the woman who shamelessly arrived in a five-thousand dollar red designed gunny sack to lecture the masses on inequality.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Re:Delusional by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's my quick, off-the-cuff list of things she could have done to win:
    1. Show up in Wisconsin during the campaign at least once.
    2. Show up in a union hall in Michigan at least once.
    3. Make yard signs available to her supporters. (Apparently Robby Mook thought them "old fashioned".)
    4. Select an even mildly inspiring running mate, instead of Mr. Boring, Tim Kaine.
    5. Tell Obama to stop lobbying for TPP while she's ostensibly running against it.
    6. Have a clear message about why she wants to be president, not just that she's "the most qualified candidate in history".
    7. Run on a core set of important issues, instead of being for a laundry list of vague "good things".
    8. Don't spend 75% of your ad money on anti-Trump "he's a bad man" spots (spend it on #7, above).
    9. Tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to stop rigging the primaries, so that when Podesta's emails get leaked, there's no "shenanigans" to get exposed.
    10. Don't have a private email server in your closet, so there's nothing for James Comey to investigate in the first place.
    11. Don't give speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225k a pop just a few years after the financial crisis, and just a couple of years before the election.

    I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  7. Watch what you email, then leaks won't hurt by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your email system is full of derogatory emails, then email leaks are going to hurt. If you are professional in your communications, then leaked data won't be as embarrassing. The emails that really hurt should never have been written in the first place.

  8. Re:Delusional by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're assuming the Dems won't run Hillary's corpse over someone people actually like.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. Re:Delusional by js3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meanwhile Trump does everything 10 times worse, breaks all the rules, a hypocrite and lies all the time (even about the things he accused Hillary of), is into nepotism, taken more vacations in 150 days than Obama did in 4 years.. I mean should I go on?

    but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  10. Re: dealt a weak hand by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Auschwitz? That kind of wild hyperbole is why he won by the way.

  11. It wasn't my fault.... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," Clinton said.

    I lost cause...

    - I am a woman
    - Fake News
    - The Russians
    - The DNC was incompetent

    NOT
    - I was repeated caught cheating against Bernie Sanders
    - The DNC collusion
    - Tarmac meeting to call off investigation
    - Failed to campaign to blue collar workers
    - Never got boots on the ground
        (Both Bernie and Trump came thru redneck Pennsylvania and Michigan, Hillary assumed her win)
    - The long history of being a corrupt insider
    - Pass legacy of Clinton Administration
    - People are tired of political dynasty's (Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's)

    These are why she lost...despite her campaign having twice the funds as Trump's campaign, the DNC party spending more than the Republicans, and the SuperPAC's that supported her having nearly 3x the funds of those supporting Trump. Only to be tromped in the electoral college.

  12. Re:The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lot's of people in California and New York voted for Donald Trump. 32% and 37% respectively. The reason that Hillary running up her totals in california and new york don't help her, is because she is already winning 100% of the electoral vote despite there being many republicans who did not for her.

    Texas is projected to flip to being a blue state in 2024. I expect many electoral college proponents will changing their tune at that point.

    The electoral college has 2 separate effects. It gives slightly more voting power to smaller states, but it also just makes the results very erratic (severely diverging from the popular vote). This latter effect has a far more profound effect on the outcome of elections.

    It is largely incidental that the electoral college has been helping republicans in recent history. When the circumstances change and see the effect start to disproportionately help democrats, we'll see democrats clamoring to keep it and republicans clamoring to get rid of it.

    It's not a good voting system, regardless of what your desired outcome is.

  13. Mods are on crack today by greythax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote? When they show up to the polls, how do they get into the booth? Also, we are talking 3 million votes that made up Hillary's margin. Considering that there are 11 million illegals in the country, how did they get that organized that 30% of them were able to pull this off? Also, how is it that not even one of them has spilled the beans on TV, for, you know, a huge paycheck from fox? If I am making it sound like you are some conspiracy nut, it's because that is what you sound like.

  14. And the "fix"? [Re:It's all in a slogan] by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    H was mostly a "status quo" candidate, for she often talked about continuing and improving O's plans. That wouldn't sit well with the rust-belt: they wanted change. The recovery mostly skipped over them. Non-rust-belt Dems mostly voted the expected pattern.

    The rust-belt is a politically tricky sell because most those factory jobs are not coming back no matter what. T blaming lopsided trade on factory loss is mostly false (automation a bigger factor), but at least he give it strong lip-service. He was at least talking about THEIR main problem.

    Being honest with the rust-belt would be delivering bad news, which usually doesn't fly politically. She could have talked much more about education and re-training for new industries, but that's NOT politically competitive with T's turn-the-clock-back promise. I'm not sure Bernie's socialist tilt would fly in that area either. Middle America wants their jobs back, not more socialism. The S word is poison there.

    I welcome somebody to present a viable and honest rust-belt platform that would have worked politically. Change often creates tough choices, and selling tough choices politically is very difficult. 2 Presidents telling voters to wear sweaters indoors or check tire pressure as a "solution" to energy problems fell flat, even though it's good and practical advice. Voters wanted cheap energy back, not more chores.

    T found the right lie at the right place at the right time. Politics is not about logic; it's an emotional sales game. H would probably have to lie to compete.