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.
She inherited the most advanced political data operation in history from Obama. Is there anything she won't blame besides herself? P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.
"Its not my fault I lost"
After failing both 2008 and 2016 for the exact same reasons, namely that people really really hate her character and dishonesty, she still does not get it.
I guess there really is no cure for stupidity.
Dear Hillary,
Please shut the fuck up.
I am a liberal democrat. I have been for 40 years. I have always voted for the Democrat, but not this time. I could not in good conscience pull the lever for you, and it was not because of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders (I am not a socialist).
Here, let me tell you why this liberal democrat, who has never abstained from pulling the (D) lever in a presidential election, did so for the first time in 2016.
It is because you are quite possibly the WORST person ever to walk the face of the Earth. You are self-serving, corrupt, and bought and paid for by dark special interests that you don't want us to know anything about. You are closed. You are opaque. You refuse to be transparent or even part way honest about anything. You are the OPPOSITE of what a liberal democrat is supposed to be. You are, for all intents an purposes, a totalitarian statist, not a liberal democrat who works for the people. Your husband is a saint next to you (and I had no problem voting twice for him, and would do it again today).
Plus, I am fairly certain you are going to die soon. Your iron-fisted secrecy around your obvious medical conditions could only lead someone to this conclusion.
So, in summary. You are corrupt. You are a bald-faced liar. You do not work for the American People. You are the worst possible choice for President.
Sincerely,
An American Liberal Democrat
Only Hillary Clinton made Hillary Clinton call 25% of the voting base "deplorable".
Hillary Clinton made the choices to ignore the states Trump was focusing on at the end (except Florida, she had an arguably correct amount of presence there).
Only Hillary Clinton is responsible for how she handled the myriad of accusations (true and false) from the right.
Hillary Clinton should blame Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter that she won't.
The DNC is stacked with Clinton loyalists and they've done everything possible to remain in control after failing so miserably and being exposed as corrupt. That's what "The Russians!" narrative is all about: an excuse for the commoners not to replace their own leadership. Does anyone really believe that a single Trump voter is now saying to themselves "Wow, Russia tricked me!". Hell no, it's meant for the dopes to have something else to blame instead of the corruption of their leadership.
Field offices are just the folks who knock on doors. A data operation is a centralized thing.
She's actually probably right. She lost because she didn't campaign in the rust belt. That's probably because their data op said they had a lock on it. Also keep in mind she lost by very, very slim margins. It came down to a few tens of thousands of votes in a few dozen districts.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
'make america great again', vs 'i'm with her'
do you actually doubt that that's what they want to do? you might disagree with what defines great, you might disagree with how to get there... but i don't think anyone could actually reasonably argue that anyone in a 'maga' hat at one of those rallies didn't want the best for america.
i'm with her... yes? no? i don't really know because i don't know where that woman stands... and i should because I should have access, as an american, to every unclassified email she sent as secretary of state :)
In fact, if some folks in the US want anyone to blame for Trump being President, they should blame Hillary Clinton...
I know people who voted for Trump specifically as an "anyone but Hillary" vote. They might well have voted for Sanders if he had been offered up.
Trump never claimed anything else. What was so blatantly fraudulent about Hillary was that she would always pay lip service to fighting for the little guys, but it was perfectly clear that she was an international oligarch, taking money from each and every obscenely rich donor after another, and clearly lying about it, over and over again. She has exactly zero charisma and avoided anything but the most softball venues where she could be assured of cloying praise. All the while, using a completely corrupt organization to crush another candidate like a bug, despite his large following. Bernie is a bumbling communist imbecile, but he at least believes what he says.
Every Trump voter I know was voting for him.
I know several Trump voters who were voting against Clinton because they saw her being president an intolerable situation. Out of my 200 or so friends & family on Facebook, there were maybe a dozen Clinton supporters (mostly female or gay), and none of them were enthusiastic about it. They saw Trump as an existential threat to feminist causes, so they were motivated by fear.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
True, the vast majority of Californians and New Yorkers voted for Clinton. The rest of the country not so much.
That's why the popular vote doesn't count in US elections - nobody wants CA and NY to decide who the next POTUS will be.
No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.
The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.
No, oddly enough they voted for Obama's campaign slogan: "Change".
People feeling the squeeze of falling jobs, falling incomes, immigration pressures saw Clinton as a continuation of policies that had given them the shaft for the last 20+ years.
The same way that people came to the conclusion that any change in the healthcare system was worth a shot, so they viewed Trump.
Exactly this. The reason Trump won a lot of the same counties that Obama did is because they both ran on basically the same platform. Trump and Obama both campaigned on change while Clinton campaigned on "more of the same". Clinton should have seen this in the primaries when all the "more of the same" candidates on both side quickly fell. The only candidates that survived for any length of time were Bernie (change) and republicans that were also outsiders offering change. Granted Clinton was an exceptionally bad candidate with a lot of people who REALLY disliked her but in her defence, that's not what lost her the election. What lost her the election was that she chose to campaign on the "status quo" while both sides were looking for an outsider to upset the fruit basket.
One of the main reasons that liberals in the big city still have a hard time seeing this is that the last decade has been relatively good to them and they don't see the stagnation that the people in the rust belt see.
The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.
Where the 'vast majority' describes a 2.1% margin. Seriously #fakenews
It was virtually a dead heat, and the "Vast majority" to lift your language of Clinton's votes over Trump came from a couple of bicoastal metropolises that have drastically different political make up and narrow interests than the rest of the nation.
Lets not get into where the "vast majority" of likely illegal alien votes were cast either.
Yes Trump's claim to have won the popular vote, but for the illegals and rigging in silly. However if you do remove those things than her already very small popular vote margin is even smaller. I would argue that allowing NY and CA to effectively dictate presidential outcomes would be very bad for the country as they don't represent same interests. Its why the electoral college exists. Its a good design, and statistically benefits democrats most of the time, to boot.
Take a look a Brexit, the most opposition was in a couple big cities that are heavily tied to international finance. Same thing with CA and NY here. If the rest of us had and real sense we'd find a way to not let them vote at all.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Throughout the history of civilization, mankind has almost always lived under a ruler. A monarch, a dictator, a despot, a military general; it doesn't matter the title of the ruler, it was all the same: the average person has no say in how the national shall operate, and the nation shall operate for the benefit of its rulers only, not those being ruled. Freedom and democracy were very rare occurrences. But America was different. Ordinary people got to vote, and the nation was operated in a fashion such that advancement of the rich and powerful did not come at the expense of the ordinary citizens. AMERICA BECAME THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF HUMAN HISTORY. Maximum freedom was achieved. Maximum prosperity was achieved. America because so successful that large segments of the population across the world (even today) are willing to leave their family and friends in their home country to get to the United States, while others considered overthrowing their monarchs and dictators to become like the United States.
So that's what American Exceptionalism means. It means that we have a winning formula, and not just an approximation that partly delivers for some people for part of the time. We know how to get the most freedom, and the most prosperity, for the most people, all at the same time. And it comes from a system of moral beliefs, not in a technocrat, not in a central planning committee, not in a bureaucratic union, not in a central bank. As long as Americans know and believe the principles upon which the nation was founded, we will continue to be that exception to human history where everyone wants to be like us.