Clinton disputes one of the most common critiques of her campaign

[SueEllenRules!]

Hillary Clinton disputes one of the most common critiques of her campaign in her new book

• Critics say Hillary Clinton didn't focus enough energy in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
• She disputes this at length in her new book, "What Happened."
• Clinton calls the idea that she didn't focus on those states enough "not credible."

One of the first things Hillary Clinton decided to address in the "What Happened" chapter on why she lost the election was one of the most common critiques of her campaign: That she didn't put forth enough effort in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Critics of Clinton's campaign strategy have said her efforts (or lack thereof) in those three states - traditional Democratic strongholds that were carried by President Donald Trump - highlighted the Democratic presidential nominee's biggest problems as a candidate.

Losing those three states cost her the election. Each state was decided by a razor-thin margin, which allowed Clinton to win the popular vote by roughly 3 million votes yet still lose in the Electoral College.

In "What Happened," Clinton's recently released campaign memoir, she addressed this critique at length.

"If just 40,000 people across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had changed their minds, I would have won," Clinton wrote. "With a margin like that, everyone can have a pet theory about why I lost. It's difficult to rule anything out. But every theory needs to be tested against the evidence that I was winning until October 28, when [former FBI Director] Jim Comey injected emails back into the election."

"For example, some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning in the Midwest," she continued. "And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple thousand votes here and there."

She insisted that the campaign "knew the industrial Midwest was crucial to our success," adding that she and her team "didn't ignore those states."

Critics point to her lack of a trip to Wisconsin following the party conventions as proof that she did not take the idea of potentially losing those crucial states seriously, but Clinton said that idea is without merit, saying "we didn't ignore those states."

The former secretary of state wrote that in Pennsylvania, her team had 120 more staffers on the ground than President Barack Obama did four years earlier and spent 211% more on TV ads. She noted that she held more than 25 campaign events in the Keystone State while having major surrogates like Obama and Vice President Joe Biden make appearances as well.

She also noted that in Michigan, she had about 140 more staffers on the ground than Obama in 2012, spent 166% more on TV ads, and made seven visits during the general election campaign.

"We lost both states, but no one can say we weren't doing everything possible to compete and win," she wrote.

On Wisconsin, Clinton said it was the "one place where we were caught by surprise."

She said her team deployed 133 staffers to the Badger State and spent $3 million on TV ads, "but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more."

"I would have torn up my schedule, which was designed based on the best information we had, and camped out there," she wrote.

Clinton pointed to new voter ID laws in the state as a strong reason for why she lost Wisconsin.

"Bear in mind that Trump received roughly the same number of votes in Wisconsin that Mitt Romney did," she wrote, referring to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. "There was no surge in Republican turnout. Instead, enough voters switched, stayed home, or went for third parties in the final days to cost me the state."

"Here's the bottom line: I campaigned heavily across Pennsylvania, had an aggressive ground game and lots of advertising, and still lost by 44,000 votes, more than the margin in Wisconsin and Michigan combined," she continued. "So it's just not credible that the best explanation for the outcome in those states - and therefore the election - was where I held rallies."

Pointing to another critique - that if she ran further to the left she would've pulled out victories in the Midwest - Clinton said she doesn't believe that to be true.

Though she lost Democratic primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran on a leftist platform, Clinton pointed to some Senate results as proof that she wouldn't have fared better running on a Sanders platform. In Wisconsin, Democratic Senate candidate Russ Feingold, who ran a populist campaign, lost to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson by a larger margin than Clinton lost to Trump. In Ohio, Republican Sen. Rob Portman trounced Democratic nominee Ted Strickland.

"Sanders himself had a chance to test out his appeal during the primaries, and he ended up losing to me by nearly four million votes - including in Ohio and Pennsylvania," she wrote. "And that was without any pummeling by the Republican attack machine that would have savaged him in a general election."

She also took issue with Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who she seemed to place a significant portion of blame on for her losses in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

"Stein wouldn't be worth mentioning, except for the fact that she won 31,000 votes in Wisconsin, where Trump's margin was smaller than 23,000," Clinton wrote. "In Michigan, she won 51,000 votes, while Trump's margin was just over 10,000. In Pennsylvania, she won nearly 50,000 votes, and Trump's margin was roughly 44,000. So in each state, there were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result, just like Ralph Nader did in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000."

"Maybe, like actress Susan Sarandon, Stein thinks electing Trump will hasten 'the revolution,'" she continued. "Who knows?"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...vania-michigan-wisconsin-what-happened-2017-9

 

[SueEllenRules!]

I think she makes several valid points here. Of course, there will be some among us who'll have their usual knee jerk reaction and dismiss outright anything she has to say without even bothering to read it. But I don't want to mention any names.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I think she makes several valid points here. Of course, there will be some among us who'll have their usual knee jerk reaction and dismiss outright anything she has to say without even bothering to read it. But I don't want to mention any names.

Gee, who could you possibly be referring to?

Just because my opinion doesn't line up with your's doesn't mean I don't read what's posted here. Clinton's book is about laying blame elsewhere, so this is more of the same. She can say she didn't ignore those states, but people on the ground said otherwise. Even Michael Moore tried warning the Clinton team based on what he was hearing in Michigan. Regarding the swing states, Moore said “These are the Brexit states of America. And there’s a lot of angry people, they don’t necessarily like Trump that much. But they see him as their human Molotov cocktail that they want to just throw into the system that has hurt them so badly."

There was also Chuck Schumer saying Democrats would pick up two moderate Republicans for every blue collar Democrat they lost. Sounds to me like he knew her ground game was in trouble.

"Sanders himself had a chance to test out his appeal during the primaries, and he ended up losing to me by nearly four million votes - including in Ohio and Pennsylvania," she wrote. "And that was without any pummeling by the Republican attack machine that would have savaged him in a general election."

She also had name recognition and the DNC actively working on her behalf. Even so, Sanders probably would have still lost the primary. But as we've seen lately, what a difference a year makes! Since loosing to Hillary, Sanders has spent his time advocating for the policies he ran on during the campaign. Unlike Hillary, he hasn't spent the days since the election blaming the world for his loss. Other people have tried, and he always steers the conversation back to policy. Hillary said Medicare for all would "never come to pass" a year ago, and today Bernie's bill has 16 co-sponsors. His push towards progressive populism is why he's so incredibly popular.

Republicans always savage Democrats. Look at the vitriol Obama received, and he was elected to two terms. As people continue educating themselves, they realize socialism isn't the boogeyman conservatives say it is.

"Stein wouldn't be worth mentioning, except for the fact that she won 31,000 votes in Wisconsin, where Trump's margin was smaller than 23,000," Clinton wrote. "In Michigan, she won 51,000 votes, while Trump's margin was just over 10,000. In Pennsylvania, she won nearly 50,000 votes, and Trump's margin was roughly 44,000. So in each state, there were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result, just like Ralph Nader did in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000."

So what's the answer? Should we do away with every party that doesn't represent the interests of corporate America and the military industrial complex? Stein voters also had more in common with Bernie, and Hillary looked down her nose at them. I'm sure many of those Stein voters also fit Michael Moore's "Brexit" theory, but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. I can certainly relate to that.

"Maybe, like actress Susan Sarandon, Stein thinks electing Trump will hasten 'the revolution,'" she continued. "Who knows?"

No, they believe we shouldn't be confined to two corrupt parties and that politicians need to earn our vote. And if you loose to a loathsome pig like Trump, you should reevaluate your priorities instead of doubling down on everything people hate about you. Bernie's influence on the party is why the Democrats crafted the "Better Deal" economic agenda and are starting to support Medicare for all. Dems wouldn't change course if not for him.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Speaking of usual knee jerk reactions...

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Speaking of usual knee jerk reactions...

No, in this case, BD Calhoun's reaction is appropriate. Placing and distributing blame fairly is reasonable, but Clinton is making a lot of disingenuous excuses -- including lying about the campaign narrative between she and Bernie Sanders.

This book hurts Hillary's brand. And why is she too dense to understand that.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Speaking of usual knee jerk reactions...

You obviously don't understand the difference between a "knee jerk reaction," and a well thought out difference of opinion. For example, I wouldn't have cited people like Michael Moore and Chuck Schumer if I was making a knee jerk reaction. Do we have vastly different opinions of Hillary Clinton? Yes. And there have been times where I've admittedly had a knee jerk reaction to her. That doesn't mean that's the case here, though.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

No, in this case, BD Calhoun's reaction is appropriate. Placing and distributing blame fairly is reasonable, but Clinton is making a lot of disingenuous excuses -- including lying about the campaign narrative between she and Bernie Sanders.

So any valid points she may have made should be dismissed outright?

This book hurts Hillary's brand. And why is she too dense to understand that.

Maybe she simply no longer gives a damn. If so, I can't say that I blame her.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

So any valid points she may have made should be dismissed outright?

I realize you're just being pedantic, but, obviously, any valid point she may have made should not be dismissed.

And of course some of what she says about what sabotaged her is legitimate.

The problem are her invalid points.

Maybe she simply no longer gives a damn. If so, I can't say that I blame her.

Naturally she still gives a damn about her legacy.

 

[Frank Underwood]

So any valid points she may have made should be dismissed outright?

The key is to distinguish the valid points from the ones that can be disputed. Her campaign strategy in the swing states, for example, is disputed by people who were there and claim their warnings went unheeded.

She's also quick to dismiss her progressive opponents as sexists, even though most of them only disagree with her on policy. She claims Bernie both stole her ideas and was too far left, but you can't have it both ways. She equates his criticisms about her policy record and paid Wall Street speeches with personal attacks, even though they're not the same thing. She blames Bernie for Trump's "crooked Hillary" attack, even though Trump made up dumb names for all of his opponents. So there is indeed a great amount of disingenuous bullshit being pumped out in her book, and my pointing that out is not enough to qualify me as a knee jerk reactionary.

On the other hand, I've also said that her point about the Trump team's numerous dealings with Russia is certainly indisputable. It's also plausible that there was an understanding between Putin and Trump in regards to election meddling. I also agreed with Hillary over Jane Pauley in regards to the "basket of deplorables" comment having no bearing on her election loss. She was never going to win them over, and she distinguished between the deplorables and those hurting economically. Therefore, I feel I have been even handed towards her. She's made a few valid points, but that doesn't mean everything she says is valid or undisputed.

Maybe she simply no longer gives a damn. If so, I can't say that I blame her.

She doesn't give a damn what progressives think about her, but then she stopped giving a damn about us once she sided with her donors.

Her book panders to establishment elites in Washington DC and the media, as well as her SJW/identity politics-loving fan base. They love it, and are convinced that it's an accurate depiction of reality.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Her book panders to establishment elites in Washington DC and the media, as well as her SJW/identity politics-loving fan base. They love it, and are convinced that it's an accurate depiction of reality.

Yes, and the women in particular don't know what else to say. They've been culturally bred to think any opposition and any lack of praise is automatically "misogyny."

They really don't know how else to process it.

When Bill Clinton was slaughtered unreasonably in the '90s and beyond, he wasn't in a position to claim sexism (and in fact was accused of it just because he like a little side snatch). And when Obama was lacerated insanely for 8 years, even though he could have screamed "racism" (and some did) he instead chose to say, "Look, I was black before I was elected..."

But not a woman and not Hillary.

Has anyone witnessed in their real lives how women respond to any criticism, as opposed to how men respond to it? Be that criticism accurate or false?

Women, of course, will respond "but all we get is criticism!" which is really not true at all, but they genuinely don't realize the falseness of that argument. It's so ingrained.

If you don't get what you want, or if someone insults you, then it's automatically "sexism" and "misogyny" and the "patriarchal culture" keeping you suppressed and degraded as a woman. (And, on occasion, it is).

The result of that mindset is that you get to be "right" 100% of the time, without question or resistance. And who, frankly, doesn't like to be in that position?

The things that were said about Hillary were pretty awful, and a good percentage of it were a pack of lies. But somehow it's "worse" if you treat a woman this way, but when men from either party are smeared and insulted -- justly or unjustly -- and just as egregiously, it just doesn't register in the same way... 'Cause nobody has insulted Mama.

But if you trash Hillary, you've insulted Mama.

So it's misogyny and "we need to start having conversations about that!" as if we don't talk about the evils of misogyny constantly in the culture and in the media. It's an incessant drone.

Like Hillary's assertion that "women are the main victims of war" which no one even blinked an eye at.

Hillary was treated badly, any fool can see that, but no worse than any man who ran as the frontrunner of the Democratic party, or served as its head, in recent decades.

And given her own point that she won the popular vote by nearly 4 million ballots, giving her the most votes of any presidential candidate ever, then it should be self-evident that it's not "misogyny/sexism/the-patriarchy" that prevented her from re-entering The White House, but the electoral college which was always designed to subvert the will of the people on behalf of white slave owners (and apparently still is, and for that very reason) or perhaps her own failure to campaign in the working class swing states, or possibly Russian tampering or even hacking.

So if she were to blame "racism" it would actually by more accurate (as that's the original, and continued?, reason for the electoral college) or the ruthlessness of the political right and their possible treason and collusion with fascist dictators overseas.

But when she (and her blinder PC/SJW supporters) just scream "misogyny!" yet again because they prefer that righteously simplistic narrative, then they're actually avoiding the real issues which resulted in her loss and belittling the existence of actual sexism.

I remind folks that I voted for her twice in 2016. And still would.

But her claims that she had the White House stolen from her because she's a woman, or because of sabotage from Bernie Sanders she's currently lying about (and in fact projecting upon him) only degrades herself and should.

And it only fuels her detractors and gives their arguments against her about her "entitlement" the tinge of validity. Even though they're admittedly largely pigs in their own right.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

I realize you're just being pedantic, but, obviously, any valid point she may have made should not be dismissed.

I must have missed the posts where her valid points weren't dismissed.

And of course some of what she says about what sabotaged her is legitimate.

Or much of what she says, depending on your point of view. Not that it really matters either way. B!tch ought to just sit down and shut up.

The problem are her invalid points.

Only for those who find them invalid.

Naturally she still gives a damn about her legacy.

She'll never be given credit for any of her accomplishments anyway. So what's the difference?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I must have missed the posts where her valid points weren't dismissed.


Or much of what she says, depending on your point of view. Not that it really matters either way. B!tch ought to just sit down and shut up.


Only for those who find them invalid.


She'll never be given credit for any of her accomplishments anyway. So what's the difference?

Okay, so you're unable to converse, or don't care to. Clinton's points against Sanders are invalid.

She lying.

She doesn't get to be "right" about every single thing she says just because she's a woman.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I must have missed the posts where her valid points weren't dismissed.

I guess that means you missed the posts where Snarky and I gave her credit for what she said about Russia, her deplorables comment, and how she has been the target of ludicrous accusations.

The problem is that every point she tries to make is valid to you.

Or much of what she says, depending on your point of view. Not that it really matters either way. B!tch ought to just sit down and shut up.

Hillary's book is up there with Trump's "alternative facts." If she's to be believed, criticisms over policy and Wall Street ties equates to personal attacks. We're also supposed to believe that Bernie stole her ideas and was so far left that he "promised everyone a pony." We're supposed to believe that every Bernie supporter is a sexist "bro," and that female Bernie supporters were pressured into supporting him by the sexist men in their lives.

Coming from "my point of view," that's quite a heap of bullshit. Being a woman is now used as a defense against all forms of criticism, regardless of the validity of it.

Only for those who find them invalid.

Yeah, like the people who can recognize contradictions and lies.

The only thing that's not clear cut is Hillary's ground strategy in the swing states. Not that I doubt warnings from people on the ground in those states went unanswered, but it's possible that campaigning there wouldn't have made a difference. Still, the fact that she didn't try, along with the fact that they were talking about picking up two Republicans for every blue collar Democrat they lost suggests Dems did indeed write them off.

She'll never be given credit for any of her accomplishments anyway. So what's the difference?

She's been given credit for her previous support of bankruptcy protection for low income people, as well as healthcare reform (which she worked on with Bernie Sanders in 1993). Snarky even said he'd vote for her again.

But you can clearly see the difference between people who voted for Hillary for pragmatic reasons, and those who support everything she says and does. The latter group supports white washing her history. So naturally, the enemy is anybody who brings it up. How dare you criticize her for once being against gay marriage, supporting wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, giving paid speeches to Wall Street and subsequently reversing her position on bankruptcy law, etc. Everybody's upset over Trump's DACA decision and the breaking up of families, but how soon we forget that Hillary said illegal immigrant children would be "sent back" just three years ago.

But poor Hillary. Nobody wants to give her credit for her "accomplishments."

 

[Frank Underwood]

CNN mocks Hillary for visiting Wisconsin and Michigan on her book tour.