We almost got Kim Jong Hill.
Posted on 04/18/2017 9:02:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
So guess what? In the last weeks before the election, the Hillary Clinton campaign did no polling. No. Polling. Whatsoever. Oh, it had data. Lots and lots of data. Analytics, even. Data analytics! But it had no independent information on the overall field of battle in states like Florida, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
So when the election began to turn Donald Trump’s way, the Clinton campaign had no idea.
This is one of the thousand revelations in “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” the new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes that, for political junkies, redefines the word “juicy” for our time.
Campaign honcho Robby Mook “was worried about overspending . . . so he declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign.” Mook had learned from his time on the Obama 2012 campaign, Allen and Parnes write, that “old-school polling should be used for testing messages and gauging the sentiments of the electorate and that analytics were just as good for tracking which candidate was ahead and by how much in each state.”
Guess not.
Allen and Parnes report that the Republican National Committee did know — but just couldn’t accept it. The RNC didn’t brief reporters on early November polling data it had developed in Michigan and Pennsylvania, “because the upticks there were so rosy that party officials didn’t believe their own data.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Thank God. ‘Nuff said.
She ran a terrible campaign because she thought she had the Obama fraud machine vote sewed up. It’s was nice to see Obama’s reverse Midas touch work on this criminal witch though.
Still seems unreal that we dodged that bullet to the brain.
God gets His way regardless of who goes against HIM.
She tried to phone it in on the way to the coronation.
But.................Russians!
Campaign honcho Robby Mook “was worried about overspending . . . so he declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign.” Mook had learned from his time on the Obama 2012 campaign, Allen and Parnes write, that “old-school polling should be used for testing messages and gauging the sentiments of the electorate and that analytics were just as good for tracking which candidate was ahead and by how much in each state.”
Guess not.
This is political malpractice of the highest order. These are what campaigns refer to as "internal" polls and are, to be sure, very expensive, and the results held closely because they affect campaign strategy, the placement of ads, the movement of the candidate. Unless, of course, they're ignored completely. As the author says, the Republicans had the data and couldn't believe it - that's the analysts' problem, but at least they had the data.
Basic stuff. You reach this state if you place a premium on personal loyalty - yes, a cult - at the expense of actual professional behavior. IF this information is correct, Mook deserves the obloquy he's getting. However, the authors are past Clinton loyalists and he wouldn't be the first underling that Hillary discarded like used toilet paper, so the jury is still very much out.
The Clinton Crime syndicate at their best— fooling the foolable, time and time again.
And yet people here insist that any Republican but Trump would have lost to her.
She wasn’t a great candidate to begin with and she made a lot mistakes but let’s give at least a little credit where credit is due-the conservatives played a very very good game in 2016. Look at what we overcame. Don’t give all the credit to Hillary and don’t give any credit to Russia. We beat her like a rented mule just exactly like we said we would. We played the best game of our lives IMO.
She and Bill are “Good People, that have Suffered enough”.
About a week after Iowa Caucus in 2008....while most reporters were focused on primaries ahead....some journalist went back to Iowa and asked how a no-name Senator like Obama won the Caucus instead of Hillary.
The commentary was interesting. Hillary and her “Team” were in Iowa six months prior. Large contingent....stayed in nice hotels....and had a pretty decent expense account. Locals in Iowa noted that the just didn’t connect to the general public or priorities. The assumption was that you just mentioned Hillary’s name and that was enough on salesmenship.
A Caucus is totally different from a primary, but her loss in Iowa set the pattern for Obama to challenge her and get donor-dollars.
I think the same issues arose in 2016,, where she could not connect to non-urban voters. Her lack of energy (due to whatever health issue she really has) also played a role. And the email server topic dragged on to hold back a fair number of voters. She lost because of herself.
Why bother running a campaign for a position that you are entitled to in the first place?
They believed their own hype and so did their uniparty media that just parroted it back to them.
“And yet people here insist that any Republican but Trump would have lost to her.”
Of course they would have lost. Less than a total of 50,000 votes needed to be shifted from the Pub column to the Dem column for the Pub to lose, and the data shows that Trump’s fearless, bold, truth-telling and implacable stance against illegal immigration and numerous other issues that no other Pub would have touched with a 10-foot poll shifted hundreds of thousands of blue-collar voters out of the Dem column as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands of new voters to the Pub ticket. In fact, if it wasn’t for Trump, the Pubs would have dodged all the issues we care about here, especially implacable opposition to illegal immigration.
In fact, any other Pub would have MASSIVELY lost because they would have been sniveling cowards, total GOPe/RINOs and/or painted by the howling enemedia as lying, ultra-right-wing, ultra-conservative, ultra-fundamentalist pieces of shite.
its true...any others , the media would have had them curling up in the fetal position, just like Romney did after the so called ‘47”% tape came out. Trump showed how you handle the media, it was a sight to behold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.