Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BurnPyro, Sep 27, 2016.
then have unreasonable discussion!
One Man In Hillary’s Campaign Warned She Could Lose, And Everybody Ignored Him
1:56 PM 12/09/2016
“Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director—a brainy and nervous former State Department aide who took on an increasingly important political role as the campaign ground on—was the only one in Clinton’s inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling,” Thrush says, citing Sullivan’s friends. “He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton’s daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn’t a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign.”
But the rest of Clinton’s campaign ignored Sullivan, with his warnings being dismissed so quickly, they weren’t even substantively considered.
In the end, though, Sullivan was vindicated entirely. Clinton’s “Blue Wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled, and she suffered shocking defeats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a combined margin of less than 100,000 votes. Had she won all three, should would have been the president-elect. In the case of Wisconsin, she lost narrowly after not bothering to visit the state a single time during the general election campaign.
A white guy tried and tried and tried to politically save Hillary from most MuriKan white guys, but he was ignored. Probably thought Sullivan was mansplaining.
i doubt hillary is the type to dismiss advice because it comes from a man. considering her field, that'd mean dismissing most advice. honestly, that just fits with the idea that she was expecting the election to be practically gifted to her
Honestly, I just wanted an excuse to share that pic. One of my favorite characters of all time, but with a modern twist.
Also, much respect for Jake Sullivan persisting in his belief that rust belt needed to be shined up. He was 100% correct.
My name is Diego Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.
The battle of the wits was my fave part.
538 made statements in a similar vein - not outright saying Clinton would lose as allegedly Sullivan did, but that these were vulnerable states that Trump's campaign was correctly targeting:
"This time around, we haven’t seen too many of those polls in Clinton’s firewall states, such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. But that’s misleading, because we haven’t seen many high-quality polls from those states, period! We have seen lots of polls from North Carolina and Florida — for some reason, they get polled far more than any other states — and plenty of them have shown Trump gaining ground, to the point that both states are pure toss-ups right now.
It’s true that Trump would have to make a breakthrough somewhere, by winning at least one state in Clinton’s firewall. But that’s why it’s not only reasonable but 100 percent strategically correct for Trump to be campaigning in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin.
In fact, Clinton would probably lose the Electoral College in the event of a very close national popular vote.
If you want to debate a campaign’s geographic planning, Hillary Clinton spending time in Arizona is a much worse decision than Trump hanging out in Michigan or Wisconsin. Sure, she could win the state — but probably only if she’s having a strong night nationally. If the results are tight next Tuesday instead, Michigan and Wisconsin are much more likely to swing the election."
Excellent quotes! Much appreciate all the links too. Key point was that Jake Sullivan was allegedly the only person in HRC's Campaign pushing the Midwest.
I think it's hard to say whether that's actually true or not, but it's certainly possible. The source appears to be Jake Sullivan's friends, who are likely to sympathize with Sullivan and his concerns, and people also tend to have an inflated view of what they have said while forgetting what others have said.
(I see this with Pox players all the time, with players saying stuff like, "I was the only one who thought X or Y and now you are all saying it. See? I was right!" but the reality is that there is a lot of varied opinions all over the place most of the time on any particular topic.)
That said, given the strong polling for Clinton, I could certainly see this actually happening in this case, but I don't think I count that as hubris - I mean, historically, polling has done a pretty good job, so calling it "excessive confidence" doesn't quite fit, to my mind. Was it ultimately wrong? Yes, but it was reasonable from their perspective.
Separate names with a comma.