#2,116 in Biographies
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 7
We found 7 Reddit mentions of Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign. Here are the top ones.
or
Specs:
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | April 2017 |
I recently finished reading Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign which I highly recommend for anyone interested in the 2016 election. Here are the paragraphs I highlighted on my Kindle.
on her decision to run
>Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her. In fact, the more people she assigned to the task of setting the tone for her campaign, the more muddled her message became.
On her script team struggling to put together her opening speech
>All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it. Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale. “I would have had a reason for running,” one of her top aides said, “or I wouldn’t have run.”
On the power structure
>Much of this infighting might have been avoided had someone been given the authority to have the final say on matters large and small. But Hillary distributed power so broadly that none of her aides or advisers had control of the whole apparatus.
On the attacks on Clinton
>For both sides, Hillary was the perfect symbol of everything wrong with America. At times, Trump and Sanders would act as the right and left speakers on a stereo blaring a chorus on repeat: Hillary’s a corrupt insider who has helped rig the political and economic systems in favor of the powerful.
On Clinton's decision who to grant an exclusive interview with about her emails
>Palmieri asked Abedin to find out which newscaster Hillary would prefer, and the answer that came back was “Brianna.” That meant CNN’s Brianna Keilar, and Palmieri worked to set up a live interview on CNN. Only it turned out that Hillary had said “Bianna”—as in Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, the wife of former Clinton administration economic aide Peter Orszag. By the time the mistake was realized, it was too late to pull back.
On coverage during the email scandal
>“The press covered Donald Trump to the complete exclusion of the other twenty-seven dwarves in that stupid clown bus the Republicans have,” one longtime Hillary pal said. “Her coverage was just as much, but it was only about one thing—the e-mails.”
On loyalty after her failed 2008 campaign
>After the 2008 campaign, two of her aides, Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod, had toiled to assign loyalty scores to members of Congress, ranging from one for the most loyal to seven for those who had committed the most egregious acts of treachery. Bill Clinton had campaigned against some of the sevens in subsequent primary elections, helping to knock them out of office. The fear of retribution was not lost on the remaining sevens, some of whom rushed to endorse Hillary early in the 2016 cycle.
On Robby Mook, the campaign manager who based all his decisions on data
>To Buell, the precocious campaign manager was frustratingly left-brained. You get so lost chasing the numbers, she thought. They’re like your gauge. You’re distracted from your emotions. You just get driven to increase numbers. The campaign’s inability to reveal Hillary’s authenticity—and its ham-fisted effort to manufacture a false version of it—was infuriating. The Hillary Buell knew, foulmouthed and fun, didn’t need a bunch of political operatives inventing a more genuine persona for her. She needed them to help her drop the armor built up over decades that shielded her most human traits.
...
>Bill thought the campaign manager was a capable operative but worried that the next-gen Mook was too invested in data to the exclusion of politics. Neither a traditional poll nor Mook’s preferred analytics—voter-behavior models based on surveys and demographic data—were as finely tuned as his own sense of political winds, Bill thought. They were an important part of a modern campaign but not the only part. “You couldn’t place all of your eggs in the data/polling basket,” one of Bill’s confidants said of his thinking. “He had the ability to sort of figure out what’s going on around him, to sort of take everyone’s feedback and synthesize it and measure [it] along with his experience and then report back.”
...
>Mook thought critics like Renteria didn’t understand his strategy. The plan for Super Tuesday relied on heavy doses of earned media, meaning television, digital, and print stories that would amplify Hillary’s message without forcing the campaign to spend precious dollars on paid organizing staff that couldn’t tilt a race by more than a few points. Mook was looking to make the most efficient expenditures possible, and sometimes that meant the campaign would look absent both on the ground and on the airwaves. In his view, for example, it was a waste of money to pay for expensive ads in Houston and Dallas, where most voters were inclined to go with Hillary in the primary.
On Bernie
>Bernie would portray her as out of touch with progressive values. Hillary thought he was out of touch with the realities of governance. It frustrated her no end that Bernie would promise the moon without offering a plan to get there.
...
>She was the one who had been absorbing his ever-heightening broadsides—and she was pissed that the news media always portrayed him as running a positive campaign on the issues. Bullshit, she thought. Bernie’s entire campaign was a character assassination—a moral-high-ground argument that she was less pure than he was. Of course, that was true in the sense that she believed in moving forward by building political coalitions. Bernie didn’t work with anyone. He didn’t do it in the House. He didn’t do it in the Senate. His “coalition” on the campaign trail was almost entirely white and disproportionately male. Hell, he was only competitive in states where just a handful of people showed up for caucuses or large portions of the electorate were independents, not Democrats.
On the Benghazi hearing
>Republicans had inadvertently staged an eleven-hour infomercial testament to her competence, soundness of mind, compassion for the victims of the Benghazi attack, and serenity in a crisis. It was worse than a waste of time for congressional Republicans; it was the high-water mark of Hillary’s campaign so far. She looked presidential in comparison to her adversaries.
On who Robby Mook's data targeted vs Bill Clinton
>From that Milwaukee [primary] debate through the end of the campaign, Hillary would never stray from the African American base that provided her sustenance in key primary states and numbers in November battlegrounds. But there was a trade-off. “Our failure to reach out to white voters, like literally from the New Hampshire primary on, it never changed,” said one campaign official.
...
>It was not only what she was doing on the ground but part and parcel of the narrative her advisers pushed to the press: she would win the nomination by collecting big majorities among minorities. The political strategy worked to complicate Sanders’s path, but it also began to alienate the very white voters who had picked her over Obama in 2008. The more she became a candidate of minority voters, the less affinity whites had for her—particularly those whites who had little or no allegiance to the Democratic Party. Amazingly, after having been the candidate of the white working class in a 2008 race against a black opponent, she was becoming anathema to them. Even more astounding, the wife of the president who had won on an “It’s the economy, stupid” mantra was ignoring the core of the Clinton brand—robust growth that touched every American. Why am I not talking to the foundation of what the Clinton brand is about? she thought, time and again, throughout the campaign.
...
>Where she had misunderstood the importance of delegate accumulation in 2008, she was now so driven by math—and the message that she would win by sheer numerical force—that she couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see that she was doing nothing to inspire the poor, rural, and working-class white voters who had so identified with her husband. She was aware of the problem, but she didn’t act effectively to fix it. After all, she was racking up delegates.
...
>Throughout the primary, [Bill would] report back from the field on what he was hearing at campaign events and from friends across the country. Mook’s response was always a variation on the same analysis: the data run counter to your anecdotes. Bill liked data, but he believed it was insufficient. To him, politics wasn’t just about finding people who agreed with you and getting them to the polls. He felt that it was important to talk to voters individually and get a real sense for what they were feeling. He also believed that a candidate could persuade voters with the right argument.
Bernie BTFO
>Browne, a slim, balding Pulitzer Prize winner with about forty years logged at the paper, tried to nail [Bernie] down on a basic question that had eluded most of the media for the entirety of the campaign. Bernie liked to say that he would break up the big banks. In the interview, Sanders acknowledged two important substantive matters that undermined his favorite talking point: he didn’t have a plan for what to do with the banks once they were broken up, and there was already existing authority under the Dodd-Frank law to wind down banks that posed too much risk to the system. He was calling for new authority that already existed! And beyond that, he couldn’t say what would happen to all of the assets once a bank was required to break apart. He was flirting with increasing the risk to consumers, rather than decreasing it. It was a demonstration of exactly what Hillary had been saying about him: his plans weren’t real.
> SOCJUS had nothing to do with Trump getting the Rust Belt
It did, in a very literal sense. Hillary went after Hispanics and Blacks while everyone was saying that she was not engaging working class whites in the same way and she figured she could pick up centrist republicans to stanch those losses while picking up the 'diversity' vote. It failed.
Source:
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
https://www.amazon.ca/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign-ebook/dp/B01JWDWP6W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496094451&sr=8-1&keywords=shattered
> Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of ho
Is from Shattered by Johnathon Allen link. It's a center-left journo's interpretation of why HRC lost before the left became obsessed with the Putin Prison wife narrative, so it's probably the most accurate even though it was published immediately after the election. These same two authors had written the official campaign bio of Hillary, so it's not like they were oppo reporters. They're sympathizers.
Edit lol, it's about ten bucks cheaper on kindle than it was when I bought it. These books have a very short price halflife.
>Where is this revealed?
This book, written by Hillary campaign staffers.
It was pretty good... sunny three of the four days, and I went for a swim on the 4th day anyway. I've only started reading books for pleasure in the last year. I'm trying to work in fiction but even when I was little I was drawn to non-fiction books and that's still true. The last book I finished was Apollo: The Race to the Moon... excellent read, surprisingly compelling. Before that I read Pre-Suasion, a book about influencing people, Roger Ebert's memoir, and a book about Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign.
Why did you use some reference link instead of just using the direct link?
Yes her emails. Cry all you want, kicking and screaming to you faux protests or whatever it is you guys think will remove Trump from office, but the email scandal was TERRIBLE from an optics point of view. That fact she managed to (barely) win the Iowa caucuses WHILE having this shit on top of her is super impressive and speaks highly of the only good part of the campaign: data analytics.
Agenda posting used to be fun in here. What the fuck is happening. Also, please, for the love of god educate yourselves. This book is hugely anti Trump and anti Sanders and still manages to paint the campaign for the disaster it was. Your queen isn't perfect, she deserved to lose.