Shattered: It's not the book many here thought it was.

[Kentonio]

I'm just coming towards the end, and its actually a very open and honest look inside the campaign. The authors clearly spoke to pretty much everyone internally, including to Hillary herself and directly quote some very important conversations. They don't go easy on anyone, but they place a massive amount of the blame on Comey, and talk a lot about Russia too towards the end (including a theory about why Putin was determined to defeat her, which I hadn't heard before).

It's not a fan piece, but neither is it a hit piece. There's hard words at various points for both Clinton and Sanders, but they also show some real warmth for Hillary and talk a lot about her aspirations to help people's lives and make the country a better place.

It's very much worth a read. You'll probably end up a lot angrier at Robbie Mook than you are now, but it's a valuable way to make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes in 2020. It's also full of insights into the personalities of a lot of major Dem figures.

[northoftheborder]

1. Sounds like this Yellow Dog Dem. needs to read that

[elleng]

2. I thought it was open and honest,

when I first read about it. Thanks for the analysis, the kind of which we need more of.

[BeyondGeography]

49. No kidding

eom

[seaglass]

3. No thanks, I'll wait for Hillary's book if I feel the need for any post mortem beyond what I already

know. Not interested in the spin with a side of agenda.

[Kentonio]

4. Not sure what agenda you think they're spinning.

Like I say, it's not a hit piece. The main takeaway (aside from Comey/Russia) is simply that the campaign went too heavily on data and voter slicing rather than traditional campaigning methods, and that Mook was likely too strict with the purse strings. The data didn't give them enough warning about what was happening to respond, and the state based people that had put up early warning distress calls weren't listened to because Mook thought the data was solid.

There's quite a lot in the first half about the campaign and Hillary struggling to provide a clear and defined message because she wanted to cover so many important things, but that's hardly a surprise.

[seaglass]

6. This agenda:

Dems want Hillary Clinton to leave spotlight
By Amie Parnes - 06/04/17 10:30 AM EDT
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/336172-dems-want-hillary-clinton-to-leave-spotlight

[kcr]

47. Yep. That says it all.

I have no idea what the deal is with Parnes these days but there's an agenda for sure.

[bigtree]

48. yep

[Control-Z]

8. Sure wouldn't know it (is not a hit piece)

by the two authors' on-air commentary. It seems everytime Hillary does anything in public all the cable programs call on the pair who proceed to trash her every move. I'm sick and tired of it. The moment I realize the two of them are on I change the channel.

[MiddleClass]

5. My assumption that campaign geared towards women

Builds everything upon trumps treatment of women and his unfitness for the presidency.

While Bill Clinton was screaming, the economy, stupid, it's always above all else, the economy, stupid.

Bobby Mook. My assumption is mapped out strategy with Hillary and was faithful to that strategy through the end.

Moderate and Republican women were coming over in the droves, but James Comey's letter with husbands ringing. I told you so that you could not, should not vote for that witch come back in the fold.

It is my assumption that is gist of the whole book, which Hillary and her people deny.

Remember, Bill Clinton is usually politically on target.


Please correct me so I can at least understand where it all stands

[Kentonio]

10. Some of that is fairly close

Bill Clinton comes across both positively and negatively. They hold him to account for some screw ups along the way and the overall impression is of a powerful politician in his waning years, but he's also the main person throughout pushing the traditional methods that the campaign lacked, and seeing problems that others in the heart of the campaign couldn't see until it was too late. The campaign basically gave up on entire areas and voter groups because the data told them that they had enough in key areas to win. The campaign spending went towards making sure they had the key areas, and very little outside. That didn't sit comfortably with Bill apparently.

You're spot on about Mook and Hillary taking the strategy through to the end, they basically adopted a huge amount from Obama's campaigns and were convinced it was the right way to win. If the data had been right, I guess it would have been. Mook probably comes out of it worse than anyone though, it seems he was playing very hard to consolidate power internally, and so lines of communication weren't anything like as clear as they should have been, and some people that could have been very useful were sidelined. It sounds like a really odd internal structure, with lots of conflict despite them trying to copy the Obama 'no drama' campaign approach.

The main critisism of Hillary is that a) she couldn't clearly put across her reasons for running in a way that voters could connect with (lots and lots of policy and issues but just not that simple vision), and that internally she was quite closed off from the campaign, with different people finding it very difficult to directly speak with her. That goes back to the campaign structure issue again. There's a few other points, but mainly just the things the Clinton's have always been famous for in campaigns.

I also hadn't realized quite how much (and how clearly and very carefully targeted) the leaked Weiner emails hurt her. Every day they had a good press day, a new email would drop to spoil it. So very, very deliberate and professional.

[seaglass]

7. Why don't you share some of the hard words the authors had to say about Bernie? n/t

[Control-Z]

9. I'd like to see that.

I won't hold my breath.

[Kentonio]

11. They were by no means soft on Bernie.

He's not actually in it as much as you might expect, but there is plenty about the damage caused to Hillary's later campaign by the primary, and at the end of the primary its clear he couldn't accept the defeat straight away despite it being clear to everyone else that it was over.

That's actually a really interesting part of the book incidentally, hearing about the behind the scenes conversations that were going on between the campaigns and the White House.

[QC]

12. No thanks. Books sometimes contain heresy and false doctrine.

I'll stick to Twitter. Only there can one find the truth.

But seriously, you're right. It's a much better book than one would expect from the rabid denunciations of it here. The tone is pretty calm, sometimes even sympathetic for Sec. Clinton, a smart candidate who couldn't catch a lucky break at some critical times. The campaign's over-reliance on analytics is an important thing to take into 2018, as well as the need for a direct and compelling rational for running.

I don't think any one book can give us the whole truth, but this one can certainly provide part of the picture.

[Kentonio]

14. Indeed. I certainly came away feeling like I had a much better insight into Hillary's personality.

It also made me feel a lot more sympathy for her as a person.

[ismnotwasm]

13. I'm glad to hear it

I'm still not reading it--The book itself may not be the hit piece the reviews made it out to be, but I suspect it's a quick-sell opportunist piece, and I'd like to wait for the dust to settle before spending my money on post election analysis.

Did it include an analysis of the impact of sexism?

[crazycatlady]

15. You can read it without spending a dime

Your public library should have it.

(I love books but get 90% from the library-- paper or electronic).

[ismnotwasm]

20. I am horrible

I am practically addicted to buying books on-line--and I literally forget about libraries--thanks for the reminder, because I need to get off my ass and utilize them

[crazycatlady]

21. mine tells me how much I save by using it

IT is on every checkout receipt.

[ismnotwasm]

25. I used to love libraries

The happiest memories of my childhood come from libraries--I still take a deep breathe when I walk into one, just for that smell

[Kentonio]

16. Yes, it talks a fair bit about both sexism and racism.

Bear in mind the majority of the book though is about the internal campaign rather than a sweeping analysis of the election and its causes. They're telling the inside story, and that's what made it fascinating to me. I saw the election, I don't need a book to tell me that sexism and racism played their parts.

[ismnotwasm]

19. Yeah, I am a feminist and I see everything through that lens

Particularly the campaign of a women who came so close to being the first woman president. Right now I'm glad to hear it wasn't as bad as it sounded from someone who had read it.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. That really wasn't the point of the book. It's not a broad cultural examination of "why she lost"

Nor is it trying to draw any sorts of deep profound conclusions. I'm sure there are other books that will and do do that, but this isn't it.

It's more a play-by-play account of what happened in the campaign.

[geek tragedy]

17. data models are only as accurate as the data that gets collected and only as useful

as their owners make them.

Clinton focused too much on Romney voters (not that they should have been ignored) instead of WWC voters who sympathized with Trump's political populism.

Realistically, the Democratic party has to ask itself why its only two viable candidates in a change election were (1) the very embodiment of the DC political establishment and (2) a backbencher Socialist committed to massive tax increases and other surefire electoral losers.

[crazycatlady]

22. Your last sentence is so true

There were other ideal candidates for 2016, but they have to step forward and want it (running for President is a huge sacrifice of personal life that many people understandably don't want).

However, this taught us a lesson that we really need to build the bench for 2020 and beyond. This includes not letting the GOP run unopposed for any seat and securing more statewide victories.

[zipplewrath]

23. Bingo

"Realistically, the Democratic party has to ask itself why its only two viable candidates in a change election were (1) the very embodiment of the DC political establishment and (2) a backbencher Socialist committed to massive tax increases and other surefire electoral losers."

Exactly. The conversation that still isn't being had is why was the democratic bench so thin. It hasn't gotten a whole lot better since the election either.

[geek tragedy]

24. part of it is cyclical

President's party takes a bath while he's in office so there's not much of a bench (look at the clown car the GOP put together in 2008 and even 2012).

And, the opposing party is generally favored after 8 years of the other party being in power.

And Clinton did some deck-clearing before she formally announced.

Bench has to be built by winning statewide elections--governors and Senators.

[BeyondGeography]

27. The answer is Hillary was a shoo-in and Bernie only ran because nobody else had the guts

Nobody to the left of Hillary, that is. As a result, we nominated someone whose best chance to win was eight years prior, not 2016.

[geek tragedy]

28. worth asking why Clinton was a shoo-in.

Possible that too much of the underlying institutional party (not the DNC, but rather the network of pols, fundraisers, state parties etc) was just too afraid of her and Bill?

Also worth knowing whether President Obama may have discouraged others from entering the race (though he almost certainly wouldn't have pushed Joe B aside).

[BeyondGeography]

30. Because she had the black vote locked up, and the hispanic vote was not far behind

A lifetime of real work went into that; she had earned it. Plus black Democrats, older ones at least (you know, voters) were going to reward her for nominating Obama in '08 and serving as his SoS. Add her base white vote (not to mention her fundraising capabilities) and you were looking at pretty forbidding odds, to put it mildly.

I was hoping that she wouldn't have run at all, given the mood of the country, but once she decided it was a go (as if it ever wasn't) I understood why so many people stayed on the sidelines. They weren't just looking at defeat, they were looking at professional isolation (to your point about fear).

I also thought Trump was the only Republican she had a chance to beat. Maybe Cruz, too. So we got lucky there. I thought.

[geek tragedy]

32. We may still have gotten lucky.

Depends on whether we survive Tr*mp.

It's gone relatively unnoticed, but Tr*mp has given the Democrats an opening into suburban Romney voters. For a lot of reasons a lot of them held their noses rather than voting for Clinton (hating Hillary had been a Republican thing for 20+years) but they may be willing to stop calling themselves Republicans after seeing where Tr*mp has taken that party.

Had they run Rubio or Kasich and blown Clinton out, politically Democrats would be much worse off.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Fully agree

This could be one of those "God writes straight with crooked lines" deals. Hopefully it's gotten as crooked as it's going to get.

[geek tragedy]

38. at this point Democrats need to avoid reinventing the wheel

1) jobs
2) corruption
3) broken promises

We don't need a theory of everything, just some core values/concepts to hammer the bad guys on

[BeyondGeography]

41. People have probably had enough entertainment for now

Stability and results would be refreshing. Apparently we're recruiting a lot of candidates with military backgrounds for the midterms, which is not dumb. I'd like to see more candidates like Buttigieg emerge. Younger doers with a track record.

[geek tragedy]

42. exactly, there's no substitute for good candidates

in some places--North Dakota, Montana etc--Democrats have to run their very best candidates to win.

2020 themes will write themselves "I want to be a President all Americans can be proud of"--but for now running good candidates and hammering the bad guys on simple, perennially winning themes for oppo parties is a pretty easy call.

[seaglass]

31. Well, she did come close to Obama in 2008. She then added to her resume as SoS. She had high

approval ratings and was voted most admired woman. Not sure why there is a question about why Democrats would support her.

While I agree Obama wouldn't have pushed Joe aside I would hope that he would have had an honest conversation with him.

[geek tragedy]

34. Same reason in retrospect it was a mistake to run Gore in 2000.

When one party has had the white house for 8 years, it becomes a change election, and Clinton was not a change candidate.

[seaglass]

37. Not sure why you would think any Dem would have a chance in a change election so we put the best

one forward and hope that the opposing candidate is bad enough that s/he can't be elected. Which was the case. I suppose if Hillary hadn't got 2.9 mil more votes than Trump we could say the people spoke and elected Trump. But the people did not. We are being governed by the minority.

[geek tragedy]

40. Bernie would have been a change candidate.

He obviously would have had his own issues and weaknesses (none of which were really fully vetted during the primary) but he could have pulled the change thing off.

So, it could have been done. Even Biden would have been better able to head off the political populist uprising--he was a much better general election candidate than he was as a primary candidate. Nobody heard Joe speak and thought "entrenched political elite" even if that's kinda what he was.

[seaglass]

43. I don't know what the change was about Bernie. In any case we are dealing in the real world where

more Democrats preferred Hillary than Bernie and Joe would have had to make it through the primary before getting to the GE. Does not sound like either would have been viable options.

[geek tragedy]

44. what's done is done.

Candidate in 2020 won't be Bernie, or Joe, or Hillary.

And what really matters are state elections between now and November 2018

[seaglass]

45. Yes, I agree with that. I do hope Bernie and Joe quickly and publicly rule out a run for 2020, I

know that Hillary already has. We need everyone to move on.

Living in MA we have it pretty easy with state elections, I will be supporting efforts in states other than my own.

[Kentonio]

46. There's actually an interesting section of the book about Joe.

Apparently he felt quite let down that Obama had jumped straight in board the Hillary bandwagon when he felt after 8 years in the White House he'd earned a shot. Seems his 'will I/won't I run' stance kept the Hillary campaign worried for quite a while.

[emulatorloo]

18. May read it when it hits the Dollar Store

I think their pot-stirring lately is pretty annoying, as detailed above by seaglass and Control-Z.

But hey that's a good way to sell books!

Thanks for the review. Appreciate it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I agree. It wasn't a hit piece.

Yes, it was critical of some aspects of the campaign, but criticism isn't the same as a hit; I don't think the authors were unfair or biased. It was an interesting inside look at the campaign and the people involved. There will be there analyses that might look at the campaign from different angles but it's hard to get a comprehensive look without considering various views of it - like them or agree with them, or not.

[Kentonio]

29. That's how I approached it too.

I'm looking forward to reading a few more different takes on the election as they come out, to see where the common themes are.

[JHan]

33. Thanks for your insight Kentonio...

To be honest I'm kinda burned out so pacing myself before reading it, I've read their previous book on HRC when she was at the State Department which you may find interesting as well. At first I was open to the book, but the choice excerpts by the media could turn some people off it..( and kind of turned me off too) plus I want to wait to read what the candidate has to say about experience herself.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Yeah, good luck with that.

It is a good read, it's a pretty solid and cogent analysis- as you say it spreads the "blame" out and Sanders doesn't come off particularly well in parts.

Hillary is portrayed as making some mistakes but fundamentally well-intentioned, as you say. Many of her campaign's errors seem to fall at the feet of Mook's data-driven approach.

The only two people the book unequivocally makes look terrible are Donald Trump and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

But fuck, the shit-losing and cloth-rending that book caused here when it came out...

[BeyondGeography]

50. K&R