Over the past couple of weeks I have been reading “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen. It is an extremely fascinating book. For those of you who actually believe in the “Russian” conspiracy this book figuratively and literally blows the lid off of that. First of all, when you read this book, there is no one in this world who could argue that Clinton’s loss was generated from a variety of things, but broken down it came down to one…HER. Secondly, it is interesting that all the media who have slobbered over this “Russian” story fail to mention the origins of this theory? It actually came from within the Clinton Campaign. In fact, the media is consistently referring to an analysis of Russian involvement, not done by the US government or any US agency (that came later), but from within the Clinton campaign and created by a Ukrainian company (you know the country Russia invaded two years ago).
The most interesting aspect, and I think one that is seriously lost on the media today is the Clinton campaign strategy and what it says about today. The strategy for Clinton, to win the nomination, was to rack up delegates. Because of 2008, Clinton’s team came into 2016 with one mission, gain as many delegates as possible so that any challenge to her would be a moot point. And how did they go about doing this? They focused on two groups: Hispanics and African-Americans. By doing so, even in states where they lost, they could generate delegates because they came from areas of states with large numbers of those two groups. So, for instance, even though Clinton lost Michigan, she actually acquired a nice chunk of delegates from that state because of cities like Detroit.
So, the Clinton campaign generated their message around Hispanic and African-American needs. For Hispanics it was all about immigration, protecting DACA, and once elected, Clinton would streamline immigration with a veiled message of amnesty. For African-Americans it was about the criminal justice system, prison sentences, BLM, and how the system was against blacks in America (i.e. Flint, Michigan and the water scandal).
There was a major problem with this though, because her message was so focused on those two groups, she left out uneducated/working class whites, white working class men, and college age students. So while her strategy was successful and she was able to rack up delegates to win, she allowed Bernie Sanders to remain in the race. Bernie spoke to the groups Clinton was virtually ignoring, and by doing so, continued to gain attention and supporters. The problem for Clinton was that it also allowed for Bernie to keep attacking her, especially on her ties to big business, trade, and a one sided economic plan.
As we know, Clinton did win the nomination, and through the Wikileaks exposure of the DNC, that was never really in question. The system was rigged in her favor, the DNC did everything to help her, and of course, the leaks also revealed how the media was working with the Clinton Campaign. Yet, very quickly they realized they had a problem going into the general election. With the help of Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s message for white working class was hollow, and made even more hollow with her gaffes, especially the coal mining one.
Why was this a problem? Because going into the general, Clinton had to rely on African-Americans, Hispanics, and women to carry her over the finish line. However there was a problem with that strategy, it was based on the Obama model. Obama, being African-American, had a leg up on Clinton. Yes, she would get the majority of the black vote no matter what, but the problem was, would they come out in the same numbers as they did for Obama? The same problem existed with Hispanics, yes she would have the majority, but would the numbers be there? And yes, she would get the majority of the female vote, but would she get the women who did not vote for her in the primaries, white educated and working class?
So, how do you get those people to come out and vote for you? Well, you can appeal to them, but appealing to them would merely get you the majority, not the numbers. You needed them to get to the polls, you needed them in the booths, you needed them to vote. And the best way to do that…FEAR. If you can paint the opposing side as racist and misogynist, then out of fear, you will get them out there.
Now, of course, it was made easier for the Clinton campaign with the Republican nomination of Trump. He had come out hard on immigration from day one and on top of that, he had said some pretty disrespectful things about women during the Republican primaries. He was tailor made for the Clinton strategy. There was one problem, there was not a single piece of Trump history that made him racist. In fact, based on the awards and recognition from various African-American groups in his past, his record was pretty damn clean. So how do you get around this? Trump calls for a “Muslim” ban, and through that, the narrative of racist was set (even though religion is not a race).
The big question is why? Why create a campaign of fear when you should campaign on promises? As mentioned, Clinton had a problem going into the general election…she had alienated the white working class during the primaries, had no real message for them, and because of her own gaffes, they didn’t trust that she cared about them. She went into the general needing minorities to come out in large number because Trump appealed to the population she could not reach.
And so that is how the narrative of the 2016 presidential race played out, and the media was more than happy to play along. Trump was painted as a racist misogynist, even though his record actually proved otherwise. Trump hired Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, and women, with many of them actually holding executive positions in his organization. His “Muslim Ban” and “Mexico sends…” comments were replayed over and over again by the media and talking heads, however what they failed to do was actually play the whole statements. The “Muslim Ban” was actually an attack on the current US vetting system. The “Mexico sends…” was actually an attack on the criminal element streaming across the border and not the working families (as Trump reference 4 times in that same speech).
This is not a defense of Trump. He hurt himself because of his big mouth. I could not stand him during the primaries because, as I mentioned many, many times, he played to the lowest base and was full of talking points with not single strategy of making any of his promises a reality. I didn’t vote for him or Hillary. I never trusted Trump to actually follow through on his promises, and Hillary for me was a POS and I felt from day one that the Democrats should have pushed Biden to run (not saying I would have voted for him, but he had less baggage and higher approvals than Clinton did).
However, this is not a defense of Trump or an attack on Hillary. It is pointing out what needs to be said. Because of the strategy of the Clinton campaign, the media and her surrogates played a very fowl game. They painted everyone who supported Trump as redneck, Hillbilly, racists pukes. In supporting this, they consistently used any image or story to support this narrative. Anytime they saw a man/woman wearing a hat or shirt with the Confederate flag they were always featured in any story involving a Trump rally. The media consistently referred to David Duke, the former Klan member, and his support for Trump as if this was proof of the racism associated with any supporter of Trump. This became the narrative, the image, and idea of Trump.
Now, this can be expected in a campaign. Every election pits the Republican as the racist who wants to do everything they can to do away with women’s rights. However, 2016, took it to a new level because it was purposely done to help a candidate. All the media and Clinton campaign needed was to create fear and get minorities in droves to the polls. And in order to do that, they painted not only the candidate (which he helped them with with his own statements and the NBC “grab them” video), but also everyone who supported him with the same misogynistic/racist brush.
In past elections, even when the Republican candidate won, the rhetoric would die out. The reason why was because, even though the narrative was used, it was used as a building block of resistance to the candidate, not the whole foundation as it was in 2016. Yes commercials, talking heads, media, and candidates themselves used the “fear” factor, but they used it as only one tool, while focusing the rest of their attention on their campaign’s ideas and hopes once elected.
That was not the case in 2016. Rarely did we actually hear how Clinton would make the country better. The entire narrative was attack Trump on how he would hurt minorities because of his innate racism and how he would “turn back the clock to the 1950’s” for women. Even in debates, with every answer she gave, she would pivot back to the racist/misogynist narrative. In other words, that was the whole and sole basis of her campaign. And because out of innate hatred from Trump (and trust his own mouth helped generate that) or the long standing reality that the mainstream media is liberal, the media continued to pounce on this narrative.
So, unlike previous campaigns, where the narrative would subside, except in some circles, post 2016 it hasn’t. That is why anyone who supports Trump to this day is painted with the “hates” mantra. Any time there is a rally in support of Trump or his agenda, the media continue to refer to the members of those rallies the “Hard” or “Alt” right of this country. It is why, not matter what idea or policy Trump proposes it is painted with the “racism” or “misogynistic” brush. Examples:
Health care: When know that Obamacare is crumbling and it is actually hurting millions of people. Since 2010, Republicans have taken control and held the House and took control of the Senate. Why? Because, they ran on the problems of Obamacare, and people, who are feeling it and seeing it, voted for them. However, since the election of Trump, suddenly the reports on Obamacare by the media are glowing (even though insurance companies are bailing out of the exchanges, even though premiums are sky rocketing, even though some parts of the country are literally without and insurance company in the exchanges). More importantly though, they point to one singular aspect of Obamacare, not the downsides that are hurting, yep, working class whites, but the medicare side, which is made up by a majority of minorities.
Tax Reform: Anyone who pays any attention and actually has to do their taxes knows that the system in place sucks. It has been a mantra of both Republicans and Democrats from the past 3 decades. However, Trump proposed a plan last month, and the whole media narrative was how it would “hurt minorities,” I personally find this interesting because, even though I do not agree with all the proposed reforms, one of the growing class of small businesses in the US are actually minority owned, but when the media refers to business, they one focus on corporations or large scale white owned small businesses.
What is most shocking about this is the fact that Democrats are actually realizing the problem. Bernie Sanders spoke out on this just today. The problem is that the Democratic party, and it’s surrogates, have continued with the Clinton campaign strategy, even post election, and it isn’t doing them any favors with working class whites in this country. Last week, I heard a commentator, a Democratic Strategist, on CNN who actually said, “We need to stop painting Trump supporters as racists, because the reality is, those same people where the ones the Democratic party has been the champion of and relied on for generations. If we continue down this path, the Democratic party will move them into the Republican tent and that is where they will remain for generations to come.”
In essence, what smart Democrats are saying, is that the Clinton message was flawed and it’s why she lost and why Democrats have been losing for the past 8 years. The message was high jacked and the Democrats need to get away from it and get back to their roots as the party of the working man. And the reality is, they will never do that as long as the continue to paint them as racists.
Again, this is not a defense of Trump, it is pointing out realities that are seriously being lost on too many people, especially in the media. If the media continues with the “Russia” conspiracy theory instead of doing a real examination of their party and a change of course, they will have issues going forward. For all those who say to themselves, “Don’t support anything Trump does, even if it actually helps. Continue on the message of “Hate Trump,” I have a question for you…how did that work out in 2016? That was the narrative and message and who won the election.
In 2012, after Romney lost the election, the Republican party did a self examination. It sent out two different survey’s asking registered Republicans a variety of questions. They took that information and restructured the message of the party. They had no idea it would be Trump that would be the 2016 candidate to carry the message, but that’s the way it turned out. What was the message: How is the economy been helping you? How are your ideas and values represented in this country? How can we help you get a job, buy a home, live the American dream? As mentioned, Trump pumped a lot of meth into the message and took it in his own direction, but the fact is, the message was still there and directed as the working class of this country.
That is, as many Democrats are saying now, what the Democratic party needs to do. It needs to break with the failed strategy of Clinton and get back to a positive message and ideas that will help the working class in this country. Because the harsh reality is, the working class are not white, black, Hispanic, women, men, etc., they are American’s.
I really hope people who read this pick up “Shattered” and see it for themselves. I’ll freely admit that I hated Clinton, but this book opened my eyes to so much more about this woman. I had a lot of friends who were Hillary supporters. I had one friend (not anymore) who posted after the election, that her daughter was crying. Even though I was glad Hillary lost, I felt bad for her and all the Clinton supporters because losing sucks. However, after reading this book, I feel even worse for them. They put all their hopes and dreams into a woman who ran one of the most egotistical and flawed campaigns in American history. She became the self imposed representative of women, even though, by her own campaigns admission, they took for granted those very women.
They spent a BILLION dollars in 2016 only to lose to a fowl mouthed jerk, but that fowl mouthed jerk did one thing right, he spent his money on understanding and listening the working class in this country and structured his message and campaign for them, while Clinton simply expected votes because of the fears they had. The problem with that though, more people had fear of losing their job, losing their house, losing the ability to put food on the table, and they out numbered those who feared being deported or being put in prison. That may sound harsh, but there has to be an acceptance of reality when reading that statement. Though you can have sympathy for illegal immigrants, they made a choice. Though you can blame the system, people chose to commit crimes. However, you losing your job because your company moved to China is not your choice. You losing your health care because an insurer left an exchange is not your choice. You house being foreclosed on because you chose to feed your kids is not a choice Americans should have to make. And in the end, like him or hate him, Trump spoke to those choices, while Clinton spoke to the others
Yeah, you nailed it. Your last paragraph is exactly what happened with people voting on their fears. Trump did the fear thing but also listened to people who feared losing their jobs.