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.

12 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
  2. 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.

  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 Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. 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]

    4. 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.
  4. Re: dealt a weak hand by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.