Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Businesses Democrats Republicans Social Networks The Almighty Buck Politics

Hillary Clinton Rips 'Bankrupt' DNC Data Operation (axios.com) 524

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hillary Clinton Rips 'Bankrupt' DNC Data Operation

Comments Filter:
  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:03AM (#54524829)

    Now she is a data scientist ?

    The laughs never stop with this woman. I'm with her 2020.

    • by PackMan97 ( 244419 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:13AM (#54524897) Homepage
      "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.
      • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:22AM (#54524965) Journal

        "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!"

        • by Triklyn ( 2455072 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:38AM (#54525075)

          '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 :)

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sl3xd ( 111641 )

            The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

            • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:25AM (#54525593) Journal

              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.

            • No, America is a shitshow, and we know it, despite deeply ingrained jingoism. Congress is lucky to have double digit approval ratings.
            • The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

              Most Americans do believe that the Government no longer works for them though, which was the hallmark of a Great America.

            • by ttsai ( 135075 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:17PM (#54526707)

              The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.

              Most Americans view the greatness of America in the context of the current quality of their own standard of living. Unfortunately over the last several years, many Americans have struggled to maintain their standard of living and for them, America (i.e., their perception of the part of America that they most clearly see) stopped being great. This economic struggle has been particularly challenging for many Americans who don't read slashdot and haven't necessarily benefited from the uptick in the tech industry.

        • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:40AM (#54525099)
          The vast majority of Trump voters were in reality voting against Clinton, not for him.
          • by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:49AM (#54525205)

            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.

            • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:02AM (#54525355) Journal

              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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote.

            But that isn't exactly how the Presidential Elections are counted, and Hillary didn't campaign except in states that she was winning, securing the ... popular vote. Trump dumped a ton of money, and spent time in rust belt talking their language, and Hillary was avoiding the public like the plague it was with her health issues.

            In the end, a lot people felt less uncomfortable with Trump than with Clinton, especially in key states, and tha

            • by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:00AM (#54525997)

              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.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                Lot's of people in California and New York voted for Donald Trump. 32% and 37% respectively. The reason that Hillary running up her totals in california and new york don't help her, is because she is already winning 100% of the electoral vote despite there being many republicans who did not for her.

                Texas is projected to flip to being a blue state in 2024. I expect many electoral college proponents will changing their tune at that point.

                The electoral college has 2 separate effects. It gives slightly more

            • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:37AM (#54526327)
              2000 election [wikipedia.org]
              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 [wikipedia.org]
              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.
            • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:00PM (#54526547) Journal

              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.

              • by greythax ( 880837 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:26PM (#54527483)
                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.
          • by JWW ( 79176 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:29AM (#54525623)

            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....

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Sure you did. Clinton was awful, but she was no worse than any of the Presidents we've had since before her husband took office. She was the victim of a 25 year old smear campaign, but unless you were asleep you wouldn't have missed that, and you would have taken into account the fact the recent talking points against her, about emails and Benghazi, were so shaky they'd been rejected even by Republican congressional committees.

              Meanwhile, Trump was clearly a fraud. You knew about Trump U. You knew about t

              • by dasgoober ( 2882045 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:26AM (#54526243)

                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.

                • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:53AM (#54526463) Homepage

                  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.

                  • by ObiWanKenblowme ( 718510 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:27PM (#54526797)

                    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".

        • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:44AM (#54525153)

          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]

          • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:46PM (#54527661) Journal

            H was mostly a "status quo" candidate, for she often talked about continuing and improving O's plans. That wouldn't sit well with the rust-belt: they wanted change. The recovery mostly skipped over them. Non-rust-belt Dems mostly voted the expected pattern.

            The rust-belt is a politically tricky sell because most those factory jobs are not coming back no matter what. T blaming lopsided trade on factory loss is mostly false (automation a bigger factor), but at least he give it strong lip-service. He was at least talking about THEIR main problem.

            Being honest with the rust-belt would be delivering bad news, which usually doesn't fly politically. She could have talked much more about education and re-training for new industries, but that's NOT politically competitive with T's turn-the-clock-back promise. I'm not sure Bernie's socialist tilt would fly in that area either. Middle America wants their jobs back, not more socialism. The S word is poison there.

            I welcome somebody to present a viable and honest rust-belt platform that would have worked politically. Change often creates tough choices, and selling tough choices politically is very difficult. 2 Presidents telling voters to wear sweaters indoors or check tire pressure as a "solution" to energy problems fell flat, even though it's good and practical advice. Voters wanted cheap energy back, not more chores.

            T found the right lie at the right place at the right time. Politics is not about logic; it's an emotional sales game. H would probably have to lie to compete.

        • by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:49AM (#54525203)

          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.

             

        • "Ready For Hillary" was worse, still. The best interpretation is "gee, I guess I'm...resigned to the fact that Hillary's getting rammed through" and at worst it's something like "okay doctor I'm ready for my colonoscopy."

      • Also I thought they way she announced she was running while sitting on the couch in a TV commercial was very odd. Seemed very lazy and entitled and it definitely set the tone for her campaign.
        • by kenh ( 9056 )

          She "launched" her campaign twice, the first one didn't result in the media feeding-frenzy she hoped for, apparently.

          And her multiple "listening tours" to find out what her platform should be was an underwhelming endeavor.

          But yeah, but the (as yet un-named as such) "Vast Russian Conspiracy" is what cost her the position she was entitled to...

      • by anegg ( 1390659 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:38AM (#54525079)

        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.

      • One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice.

        I think she did, she just ignored it. In the article I read on...I want to say Politico...dissecting the loss shortly after the election, they were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off. The blue wall was on lock and the data said they didn't need white men anymore. Whoops.

      • Both candidates were unbelievable egotists... it's hard to even compare them because I think we reached peak, saturated ego. With that said, what I heard from the Hillary Camp was roughly: "ME ME ME NOT TRUMP ME ME ME ME NOT TRUMP" and almost no other messaging. Trump did not have anything approaching a coherent message. I'm not sure he had a coherent thought. But his message was roughly: "ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY JOBS JOBS SAFETY SAFETY ME ME ME EVIL HILLARY". Notice that, even while yelling about himself and

    • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:25AM (#54524983) Homepage Journal
      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".

      • Let's say all of that is true. 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.

        You can say that she lost because of various negative issues but the DNC and her campaign should have been able to identify this a lot earlier. There was no shift in her campaigning to focus on traditional democratic states that she lost. There was no in

        • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:57AM (#54525281) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • The fact is that Clinton didn't lose by much, and her poll numbers were hit by Comey's talk about emails at the last minute. This was a loss, not a landslide.

        • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:04AM (#54525365) Journal

          practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.

          It wasn't just the DNC, it was just about every poll out there. Trump didn't have a chance. There is a video montage of all the people saying "Trump will never be president". All of them MSM, and DC inbreds, not just the DNC and Hillary campaigns.

          The stunned pundits from NBC to CNN and heck, even FOX was surprised. The data people everywhere failed. Except Trumps, who spent time and money on states he was pretty much "wasting" his time and effort on, states he won.

      • by l0n3s0m3phr34k ( 2613107 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:03AM (#54526027)
        "likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials"; they HAD three out of four with Sanders. Many people just "gave up" when he was pushed out, especially the Millennials; who actually now outnumber the boomers in numbers of voting-age people. Sanders would have been a radical change as well, but in the opposite direction of Trump / Clinton. Unfortunately, much of the US electorate aren't educated enough to comprehend "socialist democrat" != "communist" and would be completely bewildered by a European-style system that has dozens of different parties, platforms, etc. We in the US have been conditioned to only work with two parties...so it's "us" vs "them" with nothing possible in-between. The parties often switch sides, absorb any break-aways, etc. With a winner-take-all system, the math just ends up with only two parties.
  • Delusional (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:03AM (#54524831)
    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.
    • Re:Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:11AM (#54524881)
      Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.
      • Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.

        Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians [latimes.com] and late night TV hosts [theblaze.com]? The Onion articles on Uncle Joe [theonion.com] were pretty epic though. :-D

        • Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts?

          Laughing in sheer horror isn't the same as laughing in sheer fun.

          • Kathy Griffin, is that you?

            Comedy Gold right there, not the severed head, the hypocritical "apology" and all the people saying "I forgive her" who won't forgive anybody with an (R) after their name for anything.

    • It's not her fault she was dealt a weak hand. Even the "woman card" couldn't improve it. Let's face facts---even the RNC was surprised she couldn't win against Trump. Now she is really going off the rails with her blame game.

    • No she didn't. She inherited what Obama would give the campaign. And I'll bet he gave little.

      After all this (Obama) is the man whose campaign claimed it couldn't report to the FEC on small donors because there was too much data.

    • Re:Delusional (Score:5, Insightful)

      by taiwanjohn ( 103839 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:32AM (#54525023)

      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...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by js3 ( 319268 )

        Meanwhile Trump does everything 10 times worse, breaks all the rules, a hypocrite and lies all the time (even about the things he accused Hillary of), is into nepotism, taken more vacations in 150 days than Obama did in 4 years.. I mean should I go on?

        but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.

        • Re:Delusional (Score:4, Informative)

          by taiwanjohn ( 103839 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:16AM (#54525501)

          but no doesn't matter. it's all Hillary's fault.

          Yeah, exactly. This election should not have been close. Any decent candidate should have whupped Trump's ass by a comfortable margin. Hell, polls showed Bernie Sanders beating him by double digits in the week before the election -- at a time when HRC was only a couple of points ahead.

          And in fact she did beat him by a couple of points, just not in the states where it mattered! So yeah... it WAS her fault.

          By the way, don't blame me. I voted for her. (Much fucking good it did me...)

        • by Shatrat ( 855151 )

          Nothing person A does wrong excuses any actions of person B. No matter how many people Stalin killed, Hitler is still Hitler. No matter how incompetent and sleazy Trump is, Clinton is still who she is and has done what she has done, and that's why she'll never be President.

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      She didn't inherit "the most advanced political data operation in history", Obama took it and kept it as "Organizing For America" - an absolutely non-political organization that has never had it's 501C(3) status questioned, despite it being his entire "Obama For America" re-election committee...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      P.S. They're going to run her again in 2020, just watch.

      I doubt it.

      she tried in 2008 and if it wasn't for Obama she had a good chance of winning but between her and Obama, Obama was the stronger candidate. She almost went rogue and was going to run as an independent candidate but a backroom deal was probably made where she would be given a position in Obama's cabinet and in 2016 the DNC would put all of their weight behind her.

      When the 2016 election started up she was the lead democrat and all the others running were just token canidates, except for Sanders, he

      • What existing Democrats? They have no bench. The corrupt DNC has locked out anyone who doesn't toe the Globalist line and they've been decimated locally the past several years. There isn't anyone under 70 in a position to win the nomination.
  • by mschaffer ( 97223 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:07AM (#54524865)

    So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

    • So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

      I would say that Democrats couldn't possibly be stupid enough to nominate her again ... but on the other hand, they knew exactly how bad a candidate she was and nominated her anyway in 2016. So I wouldn't count her out.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Train0987 ( 1059246 )
        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.
    • There has never been a candidate who made it to the primaries, lost then made it much further in an other election. No one really trusts them that they cannot build up voter support.
    • So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?

      No way, for a variety of reasons.

      1) I can't imagine the superdelegates actually believe she remains the best option for 2020.
      2) The DNC seems hell bent right now on making sure that people, mostly women, as divisive as Hillary remain the main decision makers going forward. If another presidential primary was coming up this year, Elizabeth Warren would be the front runner. And she has a great chance to be another Mondale and McGovern in a general election.
      3) The email server stuff would start u

    • I see two scenarios. Trump f**ks things up, and they nominate Clinton because they think anyone could win (that worked so well with Kerry).

      Or Trump doesn't f**k things up too much, they nominate Clinton in 2020 to save their good people for 2024.

      #2 might actually be a decent strategy.

  • Everything is to blame, except for her own manifold failings.

  • Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sciengin ( 4278027 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:09AM (#54524873)

    "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.

    • Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did. She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college. If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:09AM (#54524877)

    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

    • by plopez ( 54068 )

      I've often said, "Trump is the Iron Fist, Hillary is the Iron Fist in a velvet glove."

      • Trump would like to believe that he's the Iron Fist, but he's really more one of those big plastic Hulk gloves.
  • This would explain (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:15AM (#54524913)
    Why she didn't campaign in the rust belt. They thought they had a lock on it. That said, as far as I can tell the Republican listened to Nate Silver and the Dems did not. That's what cost her the election.
    • nate silver isn't the personification of polling you know.

      • he's a statistical aggregator. He takes all the polls, adjusts them for historical accuracy and likely margin for error and then presents the results. His methodology is reasonably straightforward (by statistician standards) and well vetted. Basically he just approaches polling as a science and remains impartial. Since he's not employed by either party he doesn't mind giving them bad news. And he's not out to bilk anyone (like Rhomney's data team was when they were basically taking the money and running).
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:16AM (#54524919) Homepage
    she had "nothing" to work from once she rigged the nomination.
    FTFY.

    but in all seriousness, this is the kind of petulant bitching I abhor in a statesman. Its the kind of whining you expect to hear from a deep-seated, dynastic candidate with lots of connections and money but limited charisma, tact, and insight. Hillary lost the election because she was a turd of a candidate that avoided red states and rural populations where she refused to send any message. Instead she concentrated on playing the numbers and winning by electoral college votes in big blue cities. Rural and suburban voters outside of these areas saw her as disconnected and disinterested in things like systemic unemployment, drug crises, and healthcare. She was the woman who shamelessly arrived in a five-thousand dollar red designed gunny sack to lecture the masses on inequality.
  • History vs Hillary (Score:3, Informative)

    by tgibson ( 131396 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:28AM (#54525003) Homepage

    Hillary claims she lost because of Trump's superior data operation?
    FiveThirtyEight [fivethirtyeight.com] a month before the election: "Clinton has more than twice as many field offices as Trump nationwide (489 vs. 207), and her organization dominates Trump’s in every battleground state."

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:37AM (#54525061)
      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.
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:35AM (#54525047)
    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.
  • A bankrupted DNC hired an IT guy who didn't take the FBI warnings about hacking attempts seriously enough.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html [nytimes.com]

  • by evolutionary ( 933064 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:37AM (#54525067)
    It seems odd that she would continue with this unless she was preparing to fund another war chest. She was expecting to win 8 years ago, but Obama came out of nowhere with crowdfunding for his campaign. Then she made an "arrangement" (not technical illegal but undermining the democratic process so certainly unethical) with the DNC which got leaked proving the nomination was corrupt from the start, then she is saying "it wasn't my fault". Talk about sour grapes.
    • She is worried about going down in history as total loser, this is her way of propping herself up to Democrats. The overall goal is to do something so that in future election voters will see her as a leading statesman.
  • I don't get this. In 2012 the Republicans were in a mess, so much so they thought they had the presidency won. Rove famously started panicking as it became clear Romney wasn't gonna win. (Some was theatrics get out the vote to help discouraged Republicans vote in downstream contests in western states, no doubt, but clearly it was unexpected.)

    It was the Dems who won the day with big, advanced data mining.

    What the hell happened?

  • This is the same DNC that corruptly threw Bernie under the bus to provide a clear path for Hillary. They did everything they could to get her elected. If they deserve any kind of blame for causing her loss, it should be for pushing such an unpopular candidate into the presidential elections in the first place.

  • Have been for 30+ years that I've been following politics. I hope hillary runs again in 2020...that is if she hasn't stroked out.
  • Everyone's fault but her own.

    Who needs the rust belt or Bernie supporters. Who needs to campaign every day. It was her turn and that should have been enough!

    The DNC is a Clintion suicide cult. They will run her again in 2020.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:05AM (#54525369) Homepage

    "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.

  • The election was extremely close, so every little thing that flipped a few voters was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Comey, the Russians, her slogan, the DNC apparatus, et cetera, et cetera. No single straw broke the camel's back, they were all required.

    Heck she could have had a bad hair day that flipped a few voters and that straw could have been enough.

  • by xession ( 4241115 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @10:10AM (#54525449)
    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 [politico.com]

    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.

The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.

Working...