"The Plan Was Accomplished; Just Not The Right Plan"

*extremely Neil DeGrasse Tyson voice*

It's possible for 2 things to be true: Clinton blew the election, and we should probe Russian hacking

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) December 14, 2016

Hindsight calling.  In a booming cottage industry of post- election- mortems, this analysis by Edward-Isaac Dovere at Politico focuses on Michigan, but has resonance in other "blue wall" states. We look at this as one of many potential "lessons learned," not in a spirit of recrimination, but to remind ourselves of a basic tenet (read on).  Quoting at length:

Politico spoke to a dozen officials working on or with Clinton’s Michigan campaign, and more than a dozen scattered among other battleground states, her Brooklyn headquarters and in Washington who describe an ongoing fight about campaign tactics, an inability to get top leadership to change course. 

Then again, according to senior people in Brooklyn, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook never heard any of those complaints directly from anyone on his state teams before Election Day. 

In results that narrow, Clinton’s loss could be attributed to any number of factors — FBI Director Jim Comey’s letter shifting late deciders, the lack of a compelling economic message, the apparent Russian hacking. But heartbroken and frustrated in-state battleground operatives worry that a lesson being missed is a simple one: Get the basics of campaigning right. 

Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals. 

The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out “the model, the model,” as they complain about it — guiding Mook’s decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation, of course, that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).  (our emphasis)

The analysis has plenty of insider stories about how the Brooklyn HQ folks ignored on- the- ground intel, passed up on opportunities to have Clinton or other surrogates come to the state, and otherwise took the "blue wall" state for granted (the same scenario was undoubtedly replicated in Wisconsin where, for example, the only Clinton or high- profile Clinton surrogate to show up during the general election campaign was... Chelsea). In the end, the top- down, one- size- fits- all approach turned into a disaster on election day.  As one Michigan Democrat put it:

“I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan."

The age- old lesson to impart here is that it isn't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so. Read the entire piece as at least one reasonable take on what didn't work and why.

Hillary Clinton's Closing Statement

This 2- minute statement by Hillary Clinton is scheduled to air tonight on several network channels. Here's your preview (which you're welcome to compare and contrast with neo- fascist hatemonger Donald "Rump" Trump's dark, hateful, anti- Semitic appeal released several days ago):



If you haven't already, vote straight Democratic ticket on November 8.  It will be the most important vote of your life so far.

Polls Looking Good For Clinton, But --

For all this to approach reality, you have to get turnout, so don't take anything for granted.  Vote!

CNBC

With only a dozen days to go before the election, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has ratcheted up her lead over Republican nominee Donald Trump to 9 points, according to the latest CNBC All-America Economic Survey, nearly doubling her advantage from the last poll.

AP-GfK

A new Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday finds the Democratic nominee has grabbed a number of significant advantages over her Republican rival with just 12 days left before Election Day. [snip]

Overall, the poll shows Clinton leading Trump nationally by a staggering 14 percentage points among likely voters, 51-37. While that is one of her largest margins among recent national surveys, most show the former secretary of state with a substantial national lead over the billionaire businessman. [Ed. note: "billionaire businessman" - snicker]

USA Today/ Suffolk

As the most caustic campaign in modern American history nears its close, Hillary Clinton has built a formidable lead over Donald Trump approaching 10 percentage points, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds. 

You can find other polls with a smaller margin (more in the 4 - 7 point range), that would still have Secretary Clinton drubbing neo- fascist loser Donald "Rump" Trump in 2008 or 2012 terms.  But, as we note in the post below, getting an 8 percent margin of victory would increase the chances of flipping not only the Senate, but the House.  We all need to do whatever we can to get as close to this margin (if not over it) as possible because, as President Obama has said, "Democracy is on the ballot."

Sunday Reading - Giving Trump And Republicans A Proper Electoral Burial

Lots of good reads out there this morning.  As always, we hope you read the entire pieces.

Let's start with Leonard Pitts who connects neo- fascist narcissist Donald "Rump" Trump and his "rigged election" whining with a long tradition in Republican politics:

It is important to note that Trump did not spring from nowhere. Rather, he is the logical byproduct of a GOP that has spent the last quarter century telling its acolytes they were victims: of “media elites,” Hollywood values and science, to name just a few. And if you’re looking for election rigging, look no further than the party that has thrown up arbitrary legal barriers designed to make voting harder for African-Americans and other non-Republican constituencies. 

Donald Trump, in all his preening infamy, is the end result of the GOP’s years of hypocrisy and reality avoidance. Shame on anyone who takes seriously his piteous moaning about the vast forces conspiring against him. 

American democracy is the only victim here.  (our emphasis)

Speaking of voter intimidation (as we have), Colbert King wants us to know Democrats aren't going to be passive defending voting rights on Election Day:

In June, I wrote that with this election, nothing — not rallies, conventions, debates — mattered more than “getting out the vote.” 

Trump and his posse make GOTV all the more urgent. 

National civil rights groups, led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, intend to come out in force nationwide with volunteers trained to serve as a first line of defense against the intimidators. 

Others need to swing into action.  (our emphasis)

Frequent blind squirrel Dana Milbank tells us why it's important to American democracy that Rump be dealt a "humiliating defeat":

The need to deal Trump a humiliating defeat has a sociological basis in the “degradation ceremony,” in which the perpetrator (Trump) is held by denouncers (officeholders and others in positions of influence) to be morally unacceptable, and witnesses (the public) agree that the perpetrator is no longer held in good standing. 

Psychologist Wynn Schwartz, who teaches at Harvard Medical School, explained to me that what’s needed to have a successful degradation of Trump is an epic defeat. “If it is lopsided enough,” he said, “you don’t have critical masses of people who feel disenfranchised” or “who feel justified in saying that it was stolen.” 

But if Clinton’s victory is narrow, the degradation ceremony fails, because a large chunk of the population feels swindled and remains loyal to Trump. “The margin matters a lot,” Schwartz said.  (our emphasis)

 Let the New York Daily News express itself, too:

The Obamas Continue Making The Case For Hillary Clinton (UPDATED)

Two of Hillary Clinton's most effective campaigners are starting to make their presences felt:



Then President Obama called into the "Steve Harvey Morning Show" to discuss various topics including unfit neo- fascist weaselheaded f*cknugget Donald "Rump" Trump's misogyny and the importance of voting for Secretary Clinton (you can hear the full radio interview here).  Here are a few choice takes:

 -- "You have somebody who basically insulted women," he said, "And then doubled down in terms of how he talks about them, and talks about their weight, and talks about how they look instead of the content of their character and their capabilities." 

-- "[He is] not somebody I want in the Oval Office that my daughters are listening to and that sons are listening to," Obama said. "And so, across the board you’ve got somebody who appears to only care about himself." 

-- "If there’s one message I want to deliver to everybody, if you don’t vote that’s a vote for Trump," he said. "If you don’t vote, that’s a vote for Trump."

Somehow, that message has got to get through to these folks in particular.  Anything other than a vote for Secretary Clinton is something you'll regret for the rest of your lives.

UPDATE:  And here's a clip of Michelle Obama speaking at La Salle University in Philadelphia today, specifically addressing the problem of millennials not voting or voting third party (full speech here):

Post Time! Local "News" Plays Its Role In The Horserace Narrative, Too

We mostly focus on the role of the national media in creating the 2016 horserace narrative, but local "news" plays its brain dead part as well.  As an example, here are clips from yesterday's local NBC affiliate in Washington, DC, with the local anchor using One Poll to flog the "race tightening" theme (although the delta between polls is within the margin of error) and, to his credit, NBC News' Mark Murray offering her a little perspective (in the second clip):



The clip continues:



We see this almost every day on our local "news," who are just as willing as their network counterparts to try to "normalize" this campaign and neo- fascist ass boil Donald "Rump" Trump, and reduce it to a "who's up, who's down" metric. That's why we had to give a little "yay" to Murray's putting things into perspective for the eager local fluffer.

Which Candidate Would You Want On Your Side In A Bar Fight?

Inquiring minds want to know, so Bitter Empire provides the analysis.
(h/t Princeton Election Consortium)

The Panic In Noodle Park, Cont.

We've written about this before.  It's a month later, and here we are again.

It's been no secret that the "mainstream media" (including the news and analysis pages of the New York Effing Times and the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle) has been playing the Republican tune "Hillary is (inauthentic, secretive, not trustworthy, etc.)," right out of Reince Priebus' songbook for months now.  It's been a rather effective joint effort.  It's also not a new alliance.  But, while she's behind for now in unrepresentative lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire, she's leading Bernie Sanders nationally by almost 2 to 1 rather than 3 to 1, and she's still beating every Republican.  For those of you like us who have weathered many, many primaries and elections, you know there's a long way to go.  And what's going on on the Democratic side of the electorate does not come close to the Crazy on the Republican side.

Here's Eugene Robinson in today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle introducing the different narratives playing out in the Republican and Democratic primary fields:

Am I ignoring the big picture? Have I somehow missed the fact that the major themes of the campaign thus far have been disgust with politics as usual and rejection of establishment candidates?

No, it’s just that I believe the internal dynamics of the two parties are quite different. Clinton fatigue among Democrats is one thing, but the total anarchy in the Republican Party is quite another.

The op/ed is a pretty good read, and doesn't pull punches when it comes to the Clinton campaign's failings.  The polling, however, shows Democrats want someone who is experienced in politics and governance;  Republicans want an outsider, apparently preferring a know-nothing like Trump or Carson.  In a general election, we think that tips in favor of the Democrats.

So, please, when you see the headlines and the stories predicting imminent doom for the Clinton campaign, consider the source, the calendar and the opposition.

Plutocrats Bankrolling Republican Candidates

Mattea Gold has an interesting look at the financing to date of the Republican and Democratic candidates for president in today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, in a dog- bites- man kind of way.  Here's a snapshot (click on image to enlarge):

We're shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

We've already heard the big dick-swinging plutocrat Koch brothers, Foster Friesses and Sheldon Adelsons of the gilded class say they're going to pony up mega-millions to get their ultra-right puppets candidates elected in 2016.  But for every one in the spotlight, there are dozens more sugar daddies in the shadows making significant, unlimited contributions to super PACs coordinating with the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party. The big money flowing to Republican super PACs contrasts with what's going on with the Democratic candidates:

Nearly $4 out of every $5 raised so far on behalf of GOP White House contenders has gone to independent groups rather than the official campaigns.

Outside groups have already amassed more than $235 million — more than three times the $67 million raised collectively by the Republican field through June 30, according to reports filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.

So far, the dynamic is different on the Democratic side, with 80 percent of the more than $80 million raised so far to support Hillary Rodham Clinton and her competitors flowing to their campaigns.

Clinton boasted the biggest campaign haul of any candidate, $47 million, driven by a largely female donor base. Contributions less than $200 made up nearly 17 percent of her total. That was in sharp contrast with Republican Jeb Bush: Just 3 percent of the $11.4 million he raised came from such low-dollar donations.

The lopsided war chests on the right underscore how the financing of political campaigns has been fundamentally rewired in the five years since federal courts loosened restrictions on political spending by corporations and rich individuals. Those decisions triggered a rush of big donations and political operatives to independent groups that can accept unlimited donations, a trend that has dramatically accelerated this year. This election cycle has already seen bolder collaboration between super PACs and campaigns than previous races, as well as a proliferation of nonprofit groups aligned with individual candidates.  (our emphasis)

But, not to worry!  As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told us in his Citizens United decision, "... [I]ndependent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."  But he didn't say they wouldn't give rise to a right-wing plutocracy, now did he?

Making The Election Story Line About The People

Continuing on the theme of controlling the story line of the 2016 election instead of the puerile media making it about "appearances," and "truthfulness,"   E. J. Dionne, Jr., writes today:

From the beginning of 2015, Republicans have enjoyed enormous success in making her campaign all about her — focusing on any aspect of her life (or her husband’s) that might turn off voters otherwise open to her policies. It’s no surprise that her personal ratings have fallen.  [snip]

There is only one tried-and-true way for a candidate to displace a story line she doesn’t like, and that is to come up with a story line of her own. If Clinton wants the campaign to be about how she’d govern, she will have to inundate the media with substance.

In other words,  it will be Hillary Clinton's task to stay above the constant bleating by the hypocritical, attention-deficit, "gotcha" media that wants to establish its own simpleton story lines; as Dionne says, she needs to make the 2016 election about "you," i.e., the great majority of the American people and their interests and welfare.  From all indications, she and her campaign staff are savvy enough to be messaging this way (viz., immigration reform, voter enfranchisement, etc.).  If it were up to Republicans and their media enablers, this election would be non-germane, small-bore chatter about e-mails, Benghazi!!! and "[sob] why is Hillary avoiding us?"