Monday, April 24, 2017

Why Hillary Clinton Lost: Robby Mook

[I]n spite of a few lonely voices (including Bill Clinton’s), the Clinton campaign assumed it could win with a coalition of minorities and college-educated whites and so focused on that. Bill Clinton and many state Democratic operatives kept pushing for campaign visits and efforts among white working-class voters, but Mook saw that as a waste of resources and not fitting into his model. While there were some post-convention scares in the polls, almost everyone on the Clinton campaign thought they had this sewn up — until early returns from Florida started coming in on Election Night: 
No, [Steve] Schale explained, Trump’s numbers [in Florida] weren’t just big, they were unreal. In rural Polk County, smack-dab in the center of the state, Hillary would collect 3,000 more votes than Obama did in 2012 — but Trump would add more than 25,000 to Mitt Romney’s total. In Pasco County, a swath of suburbs north of Tampa-St. Petersburg, Trump outran Romney by 30,000 votes. . .  
All over the state, the returns looked the same. Schale and [Craig] Smith knew there just weren’t enough votes left in Democratic territory to offset the Trump surge.
Even before Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were called by the networks for Trump, it became clear that Mook’s analytic model had failed and that Clinton had lost, leading to her concession call to Donald Trump at 2:40 am ET.
Wow. I had no idea that Robby Mook was a Russian.

EBL: Hillary Shattered, but still out there and Hillary Clinton Election Night Admission

1 comment:

  1. I decided to get the audiobook and listen. So far through the first couple of chapters. It seems that the Clinton Campaign, among other problems, decided to take every Dale Carnegie, Steven Covey, and Zig Ziglar about how to influence people, be successful, and make sales; and do the exact opposite. Their preference was to seek retribution for perceived lack of loyalty, react immediately and prioritize urgent and unimportant things, and don't articulate a sense of purpose and vision (or more to the point, they did set a goal which is good, but then couldn't explain why the goal in any other way than "my turn, are you ready now!")

    Still, the book is obviously written by otherwise supportive authors. In just the first few chapters, it downplays the scandals we know about, and introduces a few more that it doesn't seem to recognize as scandals. For example, a $15 million dollar bankrolled SuperPAC, which included a famous investor donating more than the legal limit, is simply absorbed by the campaign with every employee being promised a job by the candidate (although infighting by campaign employees broke the promise). How's that not a backdoor way of bundling millions? But that concept is not just glossed over, but rather skipped over as if never thought of despite the famous donor mentioning it.


I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.