blueollie

Shattered: a view of the failed 2016 Clinton campaign

I just finished reading the book Shattered by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

Like many, I thought that Hillary Clinton would win but was aware that she was not in as strong of a position as Obama was in during the 2012 campaign.

Still, I thought that the “worst case” was 272-266 Clinton

And I misread the coalition that Trump brought aboard in key states.

So, what went wrong? Oh I know what went wrong with the models that overstated Clinton’s probability of winning; it was the statistical idea of independence and the width of the confidence intervals.

But what about with the election and campaign itself? The book Shattered examines that question. Yes, the book makes it clear that the Comey letter, Russian meddling and other forces played a factor; for example, in some key areas of key states, she did just as well as Obama did with the female vote but did much worse with the male vote. This book does NOT discount these factors.

But it does talk about how dysfunctional the campaign was (the goal was often to maintain access to HRC rather than to get her elected…loyalty was rewarded, sometimes at the expense of competence..and there was too much focus on analytics and “getting one’s people to the polls as opposed to trying to win at least a few votes over”.

Yes, I know; many times there are people that you are wasting your time with. But there is value in persuasion; sometimes losing red counties 65-35 instead of 75-25 can help you carry the state.

And, they painted a portrait of a candidate who, while knowing every white paper on the issues, just could not connect with voters outside of a narrow circle. And it wasn’t as if HRC was good with public introspection; she appeared to place little blame on herself, at least at that time. She does some of this in her own book, which came out later.

I found that the book was a good complement to Clinton’s own book What Happened.

Oh yes, if you Loooooove Hillary you’ll think that this book is a “hit job”. This book will be dismissed by Clinton cultists. If you hate her, you’ll find a lot you like in the book, though the book DOES admit that other factors played a big role; any one of these could have tipped the scales in such a close election.

But, realistically, I think that the book shows that attempted to run a 2012 style campaign against a very unconventional opponent with the country being in an unconventional mood.

And yes, while Obama was a ground breaking candidate, he was also a “purple unicorn” with extreme intelligence, charisma and political skill. Clinton had only the ‘intelligence” part; being a woman didn’t seem to help her a higher percentage of the female vote and she was hurt with the male vote. Though one might exclaim “sexism”, and I have no doubt that it was a factor, I wonder if there was a difference: Obama got to where he was under his own steam. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton got to where she was because of Bill; had she never married him, she might have well been some successful lawyer, professor or policy expert.

And while her being saddled to Bill got her into the arena, it may well have harmed her during this particular election itself.

Now of course, every campaign makes mistakes and has some dysfunction; after all, Trump did horribly during the debates and had all sorts of gaffes and missteps ..many which might have sunk him in a different election. But he had enough showmanship (“political campaign skill”) to overcome those missteps….at least during THIS election.

Other reviews: here, here and here.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | 2016, books, politics, politics/social | Leave a comment

getting there…slowly

Today: 6 mile run on the treadmill, followed by a 1 mile walk (1:21:40 total time; 1:05:50 for the 6 mile run).
Every 10 minutes to 55: 5.1-5.6, then 6.1-6.4 every .25 for the final running mile. Heel pain: extremely mild; almost not worth noting, in absence of knowing about it.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | running, walking | , | Leave a comment

No mass uprising over Mueller being fired: exhausted, underpaid Americans

I find some of the dialogue on Twitter to be, well, rather uninformed. I am reading about marches, pitchforks and even a “general strike” if Trump attempts to fire Mueller (he would have to do so indirectly)

The reality:

“Just 29 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Mueller, while another 29 percent had an unfavorable one, and 42 percent said they’re unsure or never heard of Mueller.”

Sure, a majority say that the investigation should continue, but this is not an issue on most people’s minds.

Think about it: the average American who even listens to the news probably gets a snippet here and there on the way between, say, their job and picking up their kids. Those most interested are those with the time to digest things, and even many of these are probably pro-Trump.

People really don’t have the time or energy to seriously challenge this.

Oh sure, the teacher’s strikes may have paid dividends, but people have kids in schools; this affects their lives HERE AND NOW..it isn’t some abstract “principle of democracy” for them.

I suppose underpaying Americans and keeping (most) of them overworked has its virtues.

Another topic: guns in schools. Yes, there were student protests about gun violence in Miami. But these didn’t get covered that well: the victims and the protesters are non-affluent and black. Yes, I know: this is “ordinary” gun violence as opposed to the AR-15 mass shooting but such violence kills far more kids than the “assault weapons/mass shootings” do.

April 14, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | , , | Leave a comment