General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, who has read SHATTERED yet?
Authors making the rounds the last couple days. I am gonna wait till price drops.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I found the book interesting.
If your public library subscribes to Overdrive...
Audiobook: https://www.overdrive.com/media/2902966/shattered
Ebook: https://www.overdrive.com/media/3031168/shattered
See if your public library subscribes to Overdrive...
https://www.overdrive.com/libraries
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)The only way to learn is to read it. Those who are afraid to read it, put their heads in the sand, and keep making the same mistakes. And DEMs will keep losing seats. DEMs don't stay in a bubble, that is what the Rs do. It sounds very interesting.
demmiblue
(36,833 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)demmiblue
(36,833 posts)I have been choosing the disrupt option more and more for senseless alerts.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm reading the book right now, and as far as I can tell it's a pretty objective look at some of the dynamics of the campaign, it covers the successes as well as some of the shortcomings- and look, I thought Al Gore should have won in 2000, you can definitely make a case for everyone from Ralph Nader to Jeb Bush fucking it up for him... but his campaign still made mistakes. Kerry should have won, but his campaign made mistakes. Fuck, Mike Dukakis-- should have won! But his campaign made mistakes.
I'm not sure why "Hillary's campaign made mistakes" is such a controversial assertion, but there you go.
Looking over this thread, though, you would think this book was 300 pages of Milo Yiannanopolis and Ann Coulter yelling about Benghazi.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)I think it will be an interesting but depressing read.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)I generally prefer to read whole books, not just media reports and reviews, before I decide that they are or are not bad. Wrongthink happens when you decide a book is bad without reading it, because then you're letting other people make that decision for you.
But I think you knew that. 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)...I'm actually in the middle of reading it, too.
The difference between the actual book and the rather hyperbolic assertions about the thing that people in this thread who haven't read it AND NEVER WILL DAMMIT... are sort of jarring.
Boxerfan
(2,533 posts)The meme that she wasn't whatever enough just doesn't fly-there is one thing & one thing only to navel gaze on-RUSSIA.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)Pulitzer Prize author is not drivel.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's pretty clear from the excerpts that the authors had a particular slant on what happened.
They intended to discount what virtually everyone has now admitted, that Russia sought to influence the election and they may have played a deciding factor.
We don't even have all the details on that yet and the book seems to dismiss it. That makes me pretty confident the books conclusions are suspect.
William769
(55,144 posts)
Hekate
(90,616 posts)They never mentioned that Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Mad King. Not once. That apparently did not happen or was just not important in any sense.
And they were pretty smug about all the reasons why it was all Hillary Clinton's fault that she lost by presumably such a wide margin.
Yeah, just read both those sentences again.
So, Pulitzer Prize or not, I may wait until next year when I can pick the book up for cheap at Planned Parenthood's annual used book sale. That is, if it has stood the test of time.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's not that you or I or anyone disputes there are things that Hillary could have done better, but that is the case with EVERY campaign. The question is, did this book fairly analyze what happened and the root causes.
On casual inspection it does not seem that way at all.
Cary
(11,746 posts)
jrthin
(4,835 posts)of what he has written over the past twenty years is just plain drivel.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)on her by the comrades has to be a part of any complete story. edit: and they're going to be unwinding that for a while to come.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The margin of victory was so small, maybe 100K votes or so spread over 3 or 4 states, that just about anything can be looked at as having "made the difference". That kind of difference can be explained by weather in certain areas. So Russia, Comey, or pant suits can be explained as the "cause". The authors of this book, out of the marketing necessity of needing to get a book out in a timely fashion, basically wrote about what they saw through their "soda straw".
However, almost all of the explanations being thrown about, have a hard time coming up against to realities. 1) More than just HRC lost that day. Races were lost across the country such that the party ended up in the minority in both houses. The performance at the state level wasn't very good either. 2) This isn't a one time event. The party has been losing ground for several election cycles. We kind of fool ourselves because we get momentary upticks in one cycle or another, but the GOP has been running the House for a approaching a decade now. And our performance at the state level has been on a severe slide for the better part of the last two decades.
There are a lot of reasons for this, and many of them are in essence "structural" to our election system. It's not that there isn't value in looking over mistakes in the last election. One can just delude oneself that they are core issues, instead of symptoms, not causes, of a larger problem. There hasn't been a perfect campaign yet.
We'd be foolish not to notice how bad of shape the Democratic party is. We'd be equally foolish to look to short term excuses for this condition. They are deep and structural and won't be easy to fix.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)these are not tools, these are brilliant authors. On our side, honesty is a good thing.
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)I'm reading Susan Bordo's The Destruction of Hillary Clinton. No offense to Alter and Parnes, but I'd rather read serious analysis by a noted culture and gender theorist than gossipy speculation based on anonymous sources. I would imagine that there are reasons why Breitbart, Fox and Friends, and Sean Hannity are pimping the latest "blockbuster" about the Clintons.
As for Alter and Parnes being "brilliant writers", they're serviceable for what they churn out. They seem to be smart careerists who have found their lucrative niche in the "Clinton-potboiler-tell-all-book" cottage industry. As for the Pulitzer, it's reputation has diminished somewhat in recent years. At this point, it's sometimes (but not always) a trophy given to villagers by other villagers for advancing the standard narrative.
You can read excerpts from Bordo's book on line.
From the publisher's website:
Gossip is easy. Get to the deeper truth, with this in-depth look at the political forces and media culture that vilified and ultimately brought down Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Unfortunately, there is currently no planned book tour. Bardo has academic commitments.
Different Drummer
(7,611 posts)I haven't bought it yet but will do so when I have time to read it. God knows when that will be.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I hope to start it this weekend.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)mvd
(65,169 posts)I'm enjoying it, but it makes me sad all over again. I definitely think it's right on about the disfunction in the canpaign. Lots of sources and it makes sense.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)disfunction by an objective factor of, oh, 50.
Yet, he "won" and Hillary"lost."
Right.
jrthin
(4,835 posts)with our dollars, so we will continue to get bullcrap.
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)What parts of the book are well sourced? One would hope, at the very least, that any factual information is well documented.
Is the inside-the-campaign gossipy stuff well sourced? Are the sources named, anonymous, or undisclosed? Are the Comey or Putin effects discussed in any depth? Do the media insider authors see any flaws in the media coverage?
I've spent a good part of my professional life as an academic editor, so my standards are rigorous. There is a difference between an interesting read and a book that actually passes muster as serious analysis.
The NPR review perhaps best summarizes what the book represents: "a first bridge beyond the journalism of the campaign year to the scholarship of the historians and other scholars".
When an unsmiling Joy Reid interviewed an uncomfortable looking Jonathan Allen, the best he could do when defending the gossipy focus of the work was to say: "This is a serious book. Everybody should buy it." Sorry, darlin', but you should be able to provide a better rationale for you book than the profit motive. And the book tour continues.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)mvd
(65,169 posts)I really hope later they mention all the other factors. Not that far in yet.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)that doesn't focus on the role of the Supreme Court gutting key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and resulting voter suppression in places where it made a difference (Wisconsin, anyone?) is BS, considering how narrow the outcome was (and talking about the "failure" of a candidate who won nearly three million more votes is kind of an absurdity).
Hekate
(90,616 posts)
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)The Shelby County vs. Holder decision (2013) struck down the coverage formula that caused certain states and townships to be "pre-clearance" jurisdictions - not a single township in Wisconsin was a pre-clearance jurisdiction. Below is a map shows the states and counties that were covered jurisdictions in January 2008 (some of these counties had successfully bailed out of the coverage formula by the time of the 2013 Shelby County decision). Basically, the pre-clearance states are what you would expect them to be - the Deep South and certain counties/townships elsewhere.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Mistakes were made and we need to learn from them. So tired of hearing 'well we got 3 million more votes' as if we can just do exactly the same in 2020 and it'll just magically work next time.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Hmmmm . . .
I wonder if Hillary Clinton understood how the Electoral College works? 
Secretary Clinton had a crappy strategy, including calling 25% of the American electorate "deplorables," so, yeah, there's that.
jrthin
(4,835 posts)
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)H2O Man
(73,524 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)Sounds like a clever plan because it is never disputed by anyone, including the main stream media.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)not so much.
I mean, everyone who has made it past a Mike Pence, Sunday School level understanding of reality understands the multifaceted nature of causuality. So there were multiple factors, and the book's authors themselves pretty explicitly state that Comey's letter a week out from the election (and, paradoxically, his "exoneration" a couple days later, which didn't help Hillary's numbers but arguably just enraged and energized more Trumpkins) quite clearly took the wind out of the sails of the campaign and, according to the data, swung the percentages enough to lose the thing.
So as much as "one singular cause" being posited, the book lays that one out.
But the central point of this book is not "what caused Hillary to lose the election" so much as "what happened, what was the story, what were the dynamics, what were the successes and what were the mistakes?"
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)The people reading this book are reading a lot of other trashy shit.
It seems like it's mostly right wingers who are buying this.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)it doesn't have a good ending if you weren't a Trump supporter.
mvd
(65,169 posts)Many are just curious. I agree that there were other factors also, and if the book just focuses on the campaign, that isn't complete. Still want to hear what they say.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)so put me in the curious camp. This book will only be one part of the complete picture.
The Russian part is still playing out, of course.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)More accurately, I downloaded it. I wanted to find out what a couple of authors with access to a lot of people who actually worked on the campaign had to say about it. Some of it is negative; some of it is positive. I am quite capable of making up my own mind about the relative value of the book, thank you very much; but I can't do that unless I actually read it. The fact that it doesn't have a good ending is irrelevant to me because I'm interested in the inner workings of a major political campaign. That doesn't make me a right-winger either.
Vesper
(229 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)lapucelle
(18,229 posts)Allen and Parnes looked decidedly uncomfortable on MSNBC yesterday as Joy gave them side eye as they claimed that, despite the media's focus on the anonymously sourced gossip, the book was actually an important work of political analysis that everyone needs to buy.
When the interview began, Allen was in his usual shit-eating-grin mode, but quickly realized this was no Fox News day at the beach. Eyes narrowed, mouth slightly open in incredulity, Joy wiped that grin off his face in quick order. The split screen set up was delicious to behold.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," reveals how Hillary Clinton blamed her defeat on Russia meddling "within 24 hours." From Breitbart news.
"You said you were interested in Hillary Clinton" says Google.
Thanks Goog, I didn't say I was interested in f#cking Breitbarf 
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)Allen looked green in the face as Joy grilled him yesterday. She wiped the grin off his face immediately when he realized he wouldn't be high-fived for dishing dirty like he was on Fox.
Today the "blamed Russia" talking point has morphed into "hatched the Russian hacking narrative".
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)From hundreds of conversations, LOL. On Twitter no doubt.
Meowmee
(5,164 posts)If you must read it. The authors are fake opportunists. I saw them interviewed- and I knew before they said a word that it was obviously a bunch of nonsense with a slant.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
pnwmom
(108,972 posts)
former9thward
(31,961 posts)And gave them full access to top campaign officials. Did she not know they were National Enquirer type writers?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)former9thward
(31,961 posts)They thought they would be doing a book on the campaign of the first female president. They made an agreement with the campaign not to reveal anything they learned before election day. They interviewed and had access to all the top campaign officials and interviewed with the agreement that what they said would stay as background until the election.
You can play with words all you want but Clinton knew who these people were and what their project was.
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)that the authors had "deep access to campaign insiders". I'm not sure if deep access is the same as being embedded.
Similarly, deep access is not full access, and campaign insiders are not necessarily campaign officials.
Hillary's mistake was trusting people who were untrustworthy.
truthaddict247
(21 posts)Condemned to repeat the slaughter of the past election cycles because democrats continue to bury their heads in the sand and ascribe a multitude of periphery explanations why we lost this election to the most VULGAR, despised and despicable buffoon, that the republicans could have possibly nominated. A man who will go in the record books as an embarrassing, lying, narcissistic knit wit that we lost to. Pathetic
Ex. A-
In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.
A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks.
Ex. B-
As the Washington Post reported, Clinton’s campaign and outside groups supporting it aired more television ads in Omaha during the closing weeks than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. And as NBC News reported, during the final 100 days of the election, Trump made 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin while Clinton made 87.
Ex. C-
A senior official from Clinton’s campaign noted that they did have a large staff presence in Michigan and Wisconsin (200 and 180 people respectively) while also stressing that one of the reasons they didn’t do more was, in part, because of psychological games they were playing with the Trump campaign. They recognized that Michigan, for example, was a vulnerable state and felt that if they could keep Trump away—by acting overly confident about their chances—they would win it by a small margin and with a marginal resource allocation.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/report_neglect_and_poor_strategy_helped_cost_clinton_three_critical_states.html
Trump won Wisconsin by 1 point, or fewer than 30,000 votes. Clinton did not visit the state once after the Democratic convention, and neither did President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, as the Huffington Post notes. “The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee,” the site reported.
*********************************************************
Whether it's denying climate change on the right or denying the neglect and outright horrible strategy of the Clinton team, ignorance is ignorance
Vesper
(229 posts)blatant media bias, votes not being counted, repeated hacking, both foreign and domestic of one and only one candidate, the misogyny, the double standards, the hypocrisy and the outright lies, attacking the campaign that won the 2nd highest number of votes in history, ignorance us ignorance.
One would gave to be remarkably ignorant to buy the gossip being peddled in this book. No wonder Breitfart loves it so much.
A. Organizers were the ones sending people out to canvass, so why didn't that person in Flint know what they were doing?
B. What do the total number of visits matter, or the ads on tv?
C. Is there anything to back any of this up? That number of staff does not seem like marginal allocation.
Ignorance is ignorance, and there always those that willfully choose it when the facts hurt too much, or when it confirms a bias they have that the facts would destroy.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)Obama did not face what she did, on every front. Ignoring all that was stacked against her and the results makes no sense.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)in numerous states, which did affect the EC.
So, is it actually a failure when the clear evidence tells a different story?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)There was definite interference and this is not a legitimate win, even if the GOP is too complicit or too plain old traitorous admit it. The evidence is pilling up and the failure of those still in denial to accept that reality is mounting.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)The most qualified candidate in history loses to a pussy grabbing TV game show host. There's no excuse for that. All the issues you list fall into the categories of "known" and "should have known". I want results. Not excuses. I do not look at the Democratic Party as my precious baby that needs defending at all cost. I look at the Democratic Party as a service provider responsible for delivering positive outcomes.
As a life long loyal Democrat I've held up my end of the bargain. It's time the party start holding up their end by winning votes and elections. Republican control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, the majority of governors, and state legislators. This is not the fault of Russia, Comey, Stein, or Sarandon.
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Vesper
(229 posts)Yes, that is what happens when propaganda took hold and was delivered by the left via outside forces.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. I want facts not blind attacks on a candidate, from those who helped with the damage to the base whose efforts to undo the damage was feeble at best. I am tired of excuses from people who delivered the toxic environment today who refuse to own up to what they did.
Those attacking and savaging the party need to stop excusing their behavior, shrugging off all they did promoting 3rd parties, feeding Trump his lines.
Ignoring reality and those whose ignorance and petulance keeps them from participating, but makes them demand things be done for them, despite their own actions in simply unreasonable. The party is no a parent, it will not indulge petulance, change diapers and when ndure tantrums.
It is the fault of all those things and the gerrymandering that was allowed to happen by people demanding that mommy/ daddy fix everything and make them clean their rooms or do it for them. That is not how reality works.
Time to wake up and smell the facts, and stop with the ridiculousness. That us what holding up the bargain means, not denying reality and understanding how politics works.
Denial is pointless. Time to wake up and start doing the work, and learning facts.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)The Democratic party has failed to win the White House, the Senate, The Congress, Governorships, and State houses. The notion that the Democratic party is owed votes rather than responsible earning votes has brought us here. Disparaging voters is a losing strategy. Doubling down on disparaging voters will not remedy the problem.
If we keep doing what we've been doing, we're going to keep getting what we've been getting. Which is a whole lot of nothing.
Vesper
(229 posts)No such notion exists, but it is a refrain we keep hearing from the GOP. Odd that.
Disparaging the voters who actually showed up and gave a historic number of votes in spite of all the factors that some choose to blind themselves to is a poor tactic. Doubling down on denial won't remedy the problem either, it will however keep us from addressing the actual problem.
So let's stop the Democrat and DNC bashing and pay some attention to the evidence that's piling up around us, and then we can remedy the problem and get results, so people can stop making excuses for their failure to comprehend what's been going on.
Blinding ourselves to the VRA issues, the voter machine problems, the foreign interference, the CrossCheck etc. etc. etc. is how we do a whole lot of nothing while dividing and damaging the party. The anger needs to be directed not at Democrats or the DNC but the actual culprits here.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Did we subcontract this responsibility to the Republicans? We need results. Not excuses. It's the 21st century and we're still dealing with voting issues? If this were any other organization returning results like this there would be so many heads rolling the boardroom would look like a bowling alley.
Vesper
(229 posts)It's not really something that any of the numerous political parties are in charge of, not even the big 2.
After the Supreme Court guttted the VRA, we're still dealing with voting issues. It's something that state, and local governments and the DOJ is supposed to handle.
Stop with the excuses of total ignorance of how our country actually works. Results requires education and a grasp of how basic civics works, attacking a party because one has literally no clue how government works or where responsibility lies is simply making excuses, it doesn't bring results, it actively blocks results.
What organization do you speak of? Are you trying to attack the Democratic Party for failing to do the job of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice and the various state and local boards of elections?
I don't even understand how people keep excusing their own ignorance while demanding "results not excuses". Please learn which aspects of government are responsible for voting rights, it's not a party, nor is it the one you keep attacking on this Democratic site where we're here to support Democrats not bash them for things that they don't have control over as a party.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Nothing can be done? We just have to take it because Republicans? Sorry. I completely reject that notion. I don't see Canadians lined up for hours and hours just to vote. Your argument appears to be political outcomes are out of control of political parties in a democracy. That's absurd.
Vesper
(229 posts)voting laws, and under the mistaken impression that it was political parties, I corrected your error.
Where did I suggest of the things you said? Why so many excuses and so little attempt to learn how the country actually works? Would that hamper all that bashing of Democrats your every post consists off?
The Demoratic party does not enforce voting rights, they are fighting for them. Apparently you have noticed that they're not feeble, not helpless or victims, the people you are attacking are the only ones seeking to do anything constructive on voter rights.
You don't have to take anything, you can choose to educate yourself, I completely reject your need to create ridiculous strawman arguments to shirk off any need to actually learn how things work so that you can continue to attack the party for things that it literally has no control over.
Oh so you don't see Canadians lining up to vote? What does that have to do with anything? Canada has a different set of rules than the US does, the Democratic Party has no say in how that government conducts elections either. I don't see much effort to learn how GOVERNMENTS not political parties do things like run elections. I would guess that Canadians spend more time educating their citizens so they're not running around blaming political parties for things the government is responsible for, that's why they're not running around blaming their party structure for not fixing potholes. Is that another topic that you'd like to blame the Democratic Party for?
What's absurd is that you don't understand how government works and that instead of responding to what I said, you seem to have created a bunch of stuff that I never said, because you cannot accept the correction of your amusing notions of how elections are conducted. You argument fails, poorly constructed strawmen often do, it's why they're fallacies.
Blaming a political party for not doing the government's job is absurd. Making excuses for not knowing simple things, even after being told, is how we do NOT get results, it is however the height of absurdity.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2017, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Political party
A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government. The party agrees on some proposed policies and programmes, with a view to promoting the collective good or furthering their supporters' interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party
Vesper
(229 posts)how the US government works, where political parties do not run elections.
I'm not sure where the total lack of a civics education is coming from, were you not educated in the US?
Is that why you're so confused about the US government and how it works?
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Your assertions that government enforces voting laws and that is somehow separate from the political parties that run government is a complete falsehood. It's you that is in error and doesn't know how government works.
The purpose and responsibilities of political parties is clearly defined above. Voting rights clearly falls under every tenet listed. Free and fair elections should be job #1 considering votes are a political party's most valuable asset.
Vesper
(229 posts)Have you been off planet or out of the country that you missed out on the news of the past decade?
The government does indeed enforce voting laws, it's kind of its basic purpose, especially in the United States.
The US government is indeed separate from the political parties, which are private organizations. They are different from elected officials.
The complete falsehood is you stating that you know how government works when every post makes it clear that this is simply not true.
I'm sorry that you choose to be willfully ignorant, but the excuses need to stop, results demanded by people who choose to never learn how government works here in the United States on Planet Earth will never be achieved.
Voting enforcement is something the government does, it's the responsibility of the political parties, that is simply not their role, stating otherwise ad nauseum won't make a false thing true.
These seem to be familiar talking points, and they seem to demonstrate that the people who keep demanding things and refuse to do their homework and are willfully determined to reject simple facts are at fault here, and those who lied to them and fed them failed talking points that don't speak well of whatever educational system failed them so profoundly.
I don't even know what more to say when faced with such determination to be wrong, and such intractable ignorance.
Rejecting reality is a poor way to go through life, but it does explain much of the bitterness and anger from those who are trying to play Americans on the internet.
I hope someday you'll take the time learn why your talking points are not reality based, there is no excuse for making such false statements. Attacking Democrats seems to be goal and rejecting reality is the method used.
You have a good morning now, hope you had your breakfast.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you blame the losing candidate for that as well?
Well then, might as well not have election observers. Countries and the UN can all save themselves a lot of time and money. It's simple, if a candidate loses, it's their fault, regardless of whatever fraud caused it.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Where is the Democratic Party? What are they doing about that? Where are the lawsuits? Where are the protests? Why isn't every Democrat on TV yelling at the top of their lungs that this will not stand?
You've got two options:
1. It's true but Democrats don't care.
2. It's not true.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What effect they had and to what extent the Trump campaign colluded with them.
That ought to be enough for you to at least hold off for for now the blame game with Hillary and her campaign.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Russians tried what?
Election observers witnessed Russians at voting polls? Doing what? Stealing ballot boxes?
Exactly what are you alleging and what evidence do you have?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The excerpts I read just seemed like gossipy trash. Pass.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Sienna86
(2,148 posts)We need to understand how to win the next time around. And we learn from the past. We must understand what we need to do differently. Don't need another 45.
Vesper
(229 posts)The authors do not discuss any of the actual issues at play here, just gossip. This book won,t tell us anything helpful, the glee that Breitbart and others are displaying over it speaks volumes.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)I agree that it is important to keep reminding people that Hillary won millions of more votes than Trump. It is a meaningful truth that should repeatedly be thrown in Trump's face and it underscores how he has no mandate for any radical agenda. Americans chose Hillary, not Trump. But Trump won the electoral college and he gets to make the State of the Union speech and appoint Supreme Court Justices.
I haven't read this book. It may well be biased and/or just gossipy looking for high sales. But the writers aren't mere hacks. If some of what they report can be corroborated and if that can provide any useful insights into how not to lose the electoral college next time, that should be considered. Hillary almost won the electoral college, even with the Russians and the FBI. So any lessons that can be learned that might help us pick up an extra percent of two in critical states should not be dismissed without even considering them.
I don't say this to be dismissive toward Hillary or her team. Any campaign can draw lessons in hindsight as to what could/should have been done differently to maximize success. That is just standard political practice. Without having read this book I can't say how much useful information it might contain, but those with a stomach for it should sift through it, especially those involved in planning and running future political campaign. And Shattered should be called out wherever it veers off from the truth.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)So when we know this was successful seems illogical to attack the campaign alone.
We know there were reasons why the margin was low in particular states that had nothing to do with the campaign, so how does ignoring every one of those factors help us here? It helps those who enjoy attacking Democrats, the DNC and Hillary ( as seen in Breitbart and the GOP's glee).
The question is HOW did he win the electoral college, and the answers we've gotten show us it wasn't the campaign that was to blame, but other factors. There is a reason that so many are so incensed here, and why this does not feel right, even before the evidence started piling up about
Russia, Crosscheck and hacked counting machines.
It sounds rather hacky, and their demeanor during their interviews doesn't inspire confidence.
It does not look like they addressed the issues that affects the electoral college or even the electors, just gossip from members of the campaign who in hindsight have a lot of opinions.
I agree, we should listen to the team. I got to know a few of the organizers, and they had opinions, but I can tell you they were pissed at the people who were throwing tantrums and mouthing off to people they knew were press. They were still upset they didn't get their first choice of candidate. They were not the norm from what I saw and heard. Some of the strongest supporters of Hillary became so in the General BECAUSE they had to do so much damage control from the primaries. All that research into he facts and her actual history had an effect on them. (They are the ones hosting post card parties, pre March sign making parties, organizing rides, and dispensing campaign stickers).
I think that he nature of these gossip books is that it's hard to call out the places where it veers from he truth, given how vague the claims are, and how they can't really be fact checked.
They were going on about the number of calls between Obama and HRC, how are we going to know that info?
I'm pretty sure those involved are sifting through it, but they are also the ones calling out the B s already.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)votes.
The electoral college isn't going away anytime soon, so we better get use to working within the current framework.
She screwed up the three states she needed to win, and that's on her. Hillary is a micromanager, and when you micromanage you have to accept the responsibility of failures and successes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Confirms a lot of what I thought.
demmiblue
(36,833 posts)Senator Gary Peters (D) did an interview with Vox that was really illuminating:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/21/14030754/hillary-clinton-michigan-loss-trump-republican-gary-peters
But, no, I won't be reading it due to some of the other issues people have already brought up.
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)of emails concerning problems with party infighting in Michigan before the convention and then again in October before a campaign stop by Mrs. Obama. The GOP even listed those divisions as talking points in their GE campaign materials. Someone had an interest in stoking divisions.
I won't further enrich the authors with a purchase, and there is already a long waiting list at my local library (very red pocket in a very blue state), so I'll have wait to see whether the authors engage in a full discussion of the problems.
Matt Taibi (no lover of Clinton) had a somewhat surprising take on the book. He calls it a deeply unflattering portrait of the candidate that actually supports the conclusion that the loss was not her or her campaign's fault.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The final paragraph:
ismnotwasm
(41,971 posts)I've read enough reviews to turn me right the fuck off. "Breitbart" is the first google hit. I'm gonna wait until a more insightful book comes out, one that doesn't jump right on the meat train.
PatsFan87
(368 posts)from the authors of Game Change.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)In this USA today article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2017/03/09/game-change-mark-halperin-john-heilemann-new-book-hbo-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/98972696/
No title yet, 2018 publication, and an HBO miniseries with the book.
PatsFan87
(368 posts)
erpowers
(9,350 posts)Paladin
(28,246 posts)kpete
(71,978 posts)not now
probably not ever
peace,
kp
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)we got to learn from our LOSSES, all 1200 of them. If a buffoon beat us, we did something wrong. PEACE back at you brother.
In 142 seconds, Rev. Barber delivers electrifying RESISTANCE speech: They FEAR our unity
Rev. Dr. William Barber II—the unwavering, unshakable founder of The Moral March and Moral Mondays (also known as the People’s Protest)—delivered one of the most remarkable Resistance speeches to the United Steelworkers, about one of the most corrupt administrations this country has ever seen. Millions first “experienced” Rev. Barber’s passion when he spoke at the 2016 Democratic Convention last July, but this short video compilation put together by Now This is bound to inspire the strongest and the weariest of anti-Trump protestors.
“They tell me if you want to make steel out of the iron, you first have got to remove the impurities.
In order for America to be America, there are some impurities we need to remove.
Racism is an impurity
Anti-unionism is an impurity
Meanness is an impurity
Hate is an impurity
Poverty is an impurity
“Don’t you understand how afraid they are of our unity? Think about it —
if they had to engage in voter suppression just to win
if they had to spend pornographic sums of money to divide and conquer us
if they had to go all the way to Russia and get help just to win…
We are not weak. Somebody fears our unity.
Because you don’t cheat somebody that you can win in a fair fight. So I came by here to say what your theme says: No more separation. Black and white, Latino let’s come together. No more separation... ‘Voting Rights’ is a union issue. ‘Wages’ is a civil rights issue. We need a steadfast togetherness so that our movement won’t have movement fatigue. We can’t bow down
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/21/1655164/-In-142-seconds-Rev-Barber-delivers-one-of-the-most-electrifying-RESISTANCE-speeches-of-the-era
9
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Just stop already.
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)as you say you are, at least temper the anonymously sourced gossip with some serious cultural analysis.
When you're done flogging Shattered, read The Destruction of Hillary Clinton.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)The most-revealing thing I heard was that they had decided on the book's title (Shattered) long ago, based on the idea that Hillary would shatter the glass ceiling with a win. They then decided that the title worked just as well as a negative.
Which raises an interesting and obvious point: would the book have read the same had she won? Would all the revelations about the mistakes and disfunction have remained in the book, with the only difference being the wry twist at the end of, "but somehow, she won anyway, in spite of herself?"
I kinda doubt it.
What I think is that her loss sent them back on a hunt to inject "different facts" and speculation into their narrative so the title would still work. The fact that they don't bother mentioning Hillary garnering 3-million more votes than tRump is an obvious tell. That fact would have appeared on Page 1 had she defeated tRump "in the biggest vote count landslide in decades."
Yeah, they've got books to sell.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)so of course they didn't know the outcome at the beginning. GLASS ceiling vs GLASS jaw. 2008 and 2016. We lost, we must LEARN to begin to win again. Hiding in a bubble is what the other side does. We are open minded.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 22, 2017, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)
in 2012 (Obama received almost 5 million votes more than Romney).
lapucelle
(18,229 posts)as it's main focus, it would still have been written with a profit motive in mind, Breitbart, Hannity, and Fox and Friends would still be pimping it, and a google search would still direct you to right wing sources first and foremost.
The only difference now is by way of bonus content consisting of the judgmental judgment of the troubling imperfections of the flawed and troubling candidate who 3,000,000 voters preferred.
It's a win-win for the authors.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)There's plenty to be depressed about already. I lived through the campaign every day. I'll pass.
oldcynic
(385 posts)Argue about what to do next!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm a political junkie, that's probably why I have 80K or so posts on a political message board. So I'm gonna read it.
Reading the book, it doesn't strike me as having a "slant" other than being a fairly standard campaign post-mortem as (apparently) through the off-record eyes of many of the folks directly involved in the thing.
I can tell you from what I've seen so far, no one comes off as blameless- certainly not Bernie Sanders, whom the authors pretty explicitly state did damage to Hillary Clinton during the primaries with his barrage of "untrustworthy" lines of attack. This is an argument I've seen made here on DU, many times.
It seems the case for the over-the-top strenuous objections to this thing is that it actually tries to examine the mistakes that were made.
If one is wedded to nothing except a martyrdom narrative, that the Clinton Campaign was the bestest campaign in human history and couldn't possibly have made even the tiniest strategic error, no, this isn't the book for that.
The book you would want, though, would be excruciatingly boring and more than a little delusional, I think.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Vote Democratic.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)in what you choose to read. You don't have to read every single book that comes out from every trashy tabloid gossip approved by Breitbart. I mean, if you want to that's fine too. Everyone has different tastes when it comes to entertainment.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts) Dem2
(8,168 posts)But I appreciate your analysis. The best strategy going forward is to look at all available information so that we can learn and hopefully not have this happen again for the foreseeable future.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)
gordianot
(15,236 posts)Here is an idea while our bones are ground in to dust let us set around and go over recriminations about the last primary and election.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Good call. That book has bargain bin written all over it.
H2O Man
(73,524 posts)on order. I'm looking forward to reading it.
still_one
(92,106 posts)Interesting how the news lately has been dominated with stories why Hillary lost, but they seem to minimize their involvement
Comey sent the letter to the republicans in Congress, and the media said the email investigation was reopened, which was a LIE, and then proceeded to parade every right wing politician across their screens perpetuating that lie
Funny how the NY Times is pushing the reason Comey sent the letter to the republicans in congress 11 days before the election, was because the FBI wanted to stay above the political fray, and not show favoritism. Give me a f**king break.
Both the FBI and the media knew what they were doing, and the book is just a distraction from their involvement.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that many people here on DU repeated the "reopened" lie, including many people that
claimed to be Clinton supporters.
still_one
(92,106 posts)complicity in spreading that falsehood
No email investigation was reopened. The letter stated clearly that they didn't know if the letters were pertinent to it, and it could take some time to determine that. However, the media saw in their infinite wisdom to report it as "the email investigation was reopened"
MSNBC was the first network to report that as "breaking news", followed by parading a group of right wing politicians across their screen for the next two hours. The other networks soon followed suit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I hope everyone got the message loud and clear, this is NOT the sort of thing you ought to be reading.
Got it? It's like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Admit you even took a look at it, and you will be put on the naughty list.
It will go down on your permanent record.
Understand?
betsuni
(25,436 posts)Got it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and people who have actually familiarized themselves with the material.
Mike Nelson
(9,949 posts)...of the authors on TV, I'm not that interested in this book. We should be looking at how the Republicans have changed the way elections are won and lost. Look at the maneuvering. Hillary did well when you look at the mechanics. Obama, also. "Yes, We Can" and "Stronger Together" are the winning messages, as the votes prove. The Republicans are going to continue to attack and surpass the Democratic voter. That's the problem, so this book's focus may not be entirely helpful.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Certainly not a hit piece, both Hillary and Bernie come in for some rough treatment but also some really nice moments.
The stuff about DWS is really interesting. Seems Hillary's campaign staff hated her as much as the Bernie people did!
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)and cannot wait for it to arrive. thanks....Al Franken one next.
