Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the looking-back dept.

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.

30 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.........
  2. Delusional by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

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

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

    2. 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
    3. 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.
  3. Translation: by sciengin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.

  4. Here, let me tell you why you lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  5. 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 Triklyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      '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 :)

    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 Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

         

    6. 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.

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

      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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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....

    10. Re:It's all in a slogan by dasgoober · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. Re: dealt a weak hand by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. 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.

  9. Re:Blamethrower for President in 2020 by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Clinton did have more votes than Trump" Wrong. Trump had more votes: 304 to 227.

  10. Absolutely laughable. by xession · · Score: 4, Informative

    The is absolutely laughable! She ran a money laundering operation to drive funds into her campaign while starving the the state-run Democratic parties. Millions of dollars went into the coffers of the DNC office and Hillary Clinton's victory fund and she has the gall to say it was "bankrupted"?

    DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

    The DNC was an entity wholly within the umbrella of the Clinton machine for the 2016 election. To say it was bankrupted suggests her own inability to manage her operation. Its as if Hillary Clinton and the DNC spent millions on research to find out why people hate the smell of turds and millions more on trying to find a way for people to enjoy the smell of turds, and left with the conclusion it must just be everyone else's problem for why they don't enjoy the smell of turds. And to top it off, then she whines about being short on money. If every room you walk into smells like shit, check your pants.

  11. The vast majority of NY and CA for clinton by mveloso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Clinton lost the popular vote by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    2000 election
    48.38% Gore (Dem)
    47.87% Bush (Rep)
    2.74% Nader (Green)
    0.96% Other (all conservative parties)
    51.12% total liberal parties
    48.83% total conservative parties

    2016 election
    48.18% Clinton (Dem)
    46.09% Trump (Rep)
    3.28% Johnson (Libertarian)
    1.07% Stein (Green)
    0.69% Other (all conservative parties) 0.05% Other (all liberal parties)
    49.3% total liberal parties
    50.06% total conservative parties

    Since the U.S. only allows a single vote for President, if nobody wins an outright majority (50%), you have to take into account votes for other candidates to really judge the will of the people in that election. This accounts for third parties siphoning votes away from the top candidates.

    In 2000, Gore won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, and the liberal parties won a majority of the popular vote. Gore was the "best" winner of the 2000 election.

    In 2016, Clinton won a plurality (but not a majority) of the popular vote, but the conservative parties won a majority of the popular vote. Trump was the "best" winner of the 2016 election.

    Clinton lost because she wasn't popular enough to get enough liberal voters to go to the polling stations, plain and simple. She (and many liberal pundits) refuse to recognize this, and keep trying to blame external factors for her loss. Russian meddling (never mind that if emails saying Trump had been given debate questions in advance were leaked, that would've been the scandal instead of the source being Russia), "fake news" (which has been present forever, just not with a catchy name), Comey's announcements (Clinton's polls went down when Comey announced she wasn't being charged with anything, not even a reprimand - she likely lost a large number of voters with security clearances), and now poor DNC operations (Trump's campaign was even more disorganized). Winners adapt so they can win. Losers refuse to change even when they're told they're wrong, then blame others for their loss.

  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.