Shattered: the new Clinton campaign tell-all

[Brillopad]

Tells all about inside Hilary Clinton's doomed campaign and reveals how Hilary Clinton personally placed blame for her bruising defeat on Russian meddling within 24 hours of her concession speech.

The book further highlights how Clinton's Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staff John Podesta and Ronny Mook 24 hours after she conceded.

Elsewhere, however authors Allen and Parnes provide polling numbers and other raw data that pinpoint the precise reason why Clinton lost - hint: it's not Russia - but men and working class democrats in Pennsylvania turning to Trump, and how he simply out-performed her with white voters in battleground Florida.

The above snippet from Shattered makes for interesting reading. Thoughts.

[ebandit]

...what would be more insightful would be just how these two chumps ever got to run
for president?

...did people really think it was a good idea..................

Mark L

[user104658]

Q: Why did Trump win.

A: Little-dicked men who don't know how to stand up for themselves so want Daddy Trump to do it for them.


Its hardly a revelation, is it?

[Jamie89]

I'd be interested to read it, I'm still fascinated by the election. On the Russia thing though, in the snippet it says that she lost not because of Russia but because of voters turning to Trump... but weren't Russia accused of an 'influence campaign'? Therefore some of the voters that turned to Trump could have turned because of the Russian involvement? So it's ignoring some basic logic there and makes me wonder if the book is biased/propaganda? Not that I think she lost solely because of Russia, personally I think there were likely a lot of factors that led to her defeat, problems with her campaign, problems with her as a candidate, but also Trump tapping in to a lot of peoples fears, and yeah maybe partly the Russian involvement too.

[Jamie89]

Also actually, the wording of the 'Russia blame-game'... a 'plan being hatched' etc :laugh: I mean isn't the Russian involvement something that there's actual evidence to support? So them making it sound like it's just made up nonsense created by the Clinton campaign makes me think maybe it is just propaganda after all, rather than anything factual?

[Brillopad]

I'd be interested to read it, I'm still fascinated by the election. On the Russia thing though, in the snippet it says that she lost not because of Russia but because of voters turning to Trump... but weren't Russia accused of an 'influence campaign'? Therefore some of the voters that turned to Trump could have turned because of the Russian involvement? So it's ignoring some basic logic there and makes me wonder if the book is biased/propaganda? Not that I think she lost solely because of Russia, personally I think there were likely a lot of factors that led to her defeat, problems with her campaign, problems with her as a candidate, but also Trump tapping in to a lot of peoples fears, and yeah maybe partly the Russian involvement too.

In my understanding the Russian claims have not been proven. I just find it interesting that Clinton started and planned such allegations - she is one sore loser who cannot accept she was not as popular as she liked to think she was and has no scruples or morals whatsoever.

[Jamie89]

In my understanding the Russian claims have not been proven. I just find it interesting that Clinton started and planned such allegations - she is one sore loser who cannot accept she was not as popular as she liked to think she was and has no scruples or morals whatsoever.

It's interesting, but then I'd be sore if I lost to Trump too tbf :laugh: And yeah I'm not sure if it was ever proven, but there's plenty of evidence for it, so it's something that's worth following up on (I don't see why she should ignore that evidence?) I think if either campaign was going to be behind wanting it to be investigated it would surely be hers.

[the truth]

Q: Why did Trump win.

A: Little-dicked men who don't know how to stand up for themselves so want Daddy Trump to do it for them.


Its hardly a revelation, is it?
sexist:nono:

[the truth]

he fought against globalisation kept American jobs and secured borders.

[MB.]

he fought against globalisation kept American jobs and secured borders.

Mmm, his travel ban has been a huge success...

And "fought against globalisation" is a funny way of saying "pushed America to the brink of nuclear war"