Current Events > I thought Clinton's book was supposed to be a mea culpa?

(+) Yeah! (+)

“What Happened” is not one book, but many. It is a candid and blackly funny account of her mood in the direct aftermath of losing to Donald J. Trump. It is a post-mortem, in which she is both coroner and corpse. It is a feminist manifesto. It is a score-settling jubilee. It is a rant against James B. Comey, Bernie Sanders, the media, James B. Comey, Vladimir Putin and James B. Comey. It is a primer on Russian spying. It is a thumping of Trump. (“I sometimes wonder: If you add together his time spent on golf, Twitter and cable news,” she writes, “what’s left?”)

this doesn't sound even a little like that!

but I do want to read it
---

It was her turn though.
---

Is that from the back of the book?
---

She has maintained that it was never her fault since losing....

Why would she change now?
---

Biggest failure in U.S. election history.

Lol Hillary!
---

The three Comey mentions in that line made me lol.

That was pretty good at least.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Is that from the back of the book?

I think its part of the NYT review
---

Oh, so a blame book like anyone with half a mind knew it would be.

Where's @Doom_Art to defend this?
---

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/12/hillary-clintons-book-what-happened-clear-message

Unfortunately, her new book is less an effort to explain than it is to explain away.

No real blame ever settles anywhere near Clinton’s person. And while she wrestles gamely with the larger historical question of why the party of the people has withered as inequality grows, she never offers a satisfying answer. Instead, most of the blame is directed outward, at familiar suspects like James Comey, the Russians and the media.

Still, by exercising a little discernment, readers can find clues to the mystery of 2016 here and there among the clouds of blame-evasion and positive thinking.

Start at the beginning: why did Hillary Clinton run for president? “[B]ecause I thought I’d be good at the job,” she writes. Then, 13 pages later: “It was a chance to do the most good I would ever be able to do.”

A would-be do-gooder needs problems to solve, of course, and so Clinton says she turned next to the people who knew what was wrong. “I started calling policy experts,” she writes, “reading thick binders of memos, and making lists of problems that needed more thought.” Lists of problems and solutions are everywhere; reeling them off one after another is one of her favorite rhetorical devices, her way of checking the boxes and letting everyone know that she cares.
---

why does she hate america so much?
---

Funny how she blames the media. What did they do to make her lose? They were all pulling for her.
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/13/hillary-clintons-message-to-democrats-dont-be-like-bernie/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.802179503002

I mean I haven't read it yet but like all of the media hits are about things that are things other than, "here's what I could have done better"

that is probably less clickbait-y tho
---

s0nicfan posted...

It was her turn though.

---

Balrog0 posted...

. It is a feminist manifesto

*topic list*
---

My guess is that it's both.

The general public's viewpoint on what exactly went down during the election is so drastically skewed by propaganda that I think a bit of reorienting is probably a necessary device.
---

I'd read it but I don't want to give her any of my money
---

Balrog0 posted...

No real blame ever settles anywhere near Clinton’s person.

this is disappointing

a lot of the early marketing absolutely did present it as mea culpa

if it's not at all that way, i'll admit to being wrong, though i was repeating what the publishers wanted people to think

mea culpa sells. "fuck all you fuckers i lost and i'm mad" doesnt really sell so i can't blame them.
---

COVxy posted...

My guess is that it's both.

The general public's viewpoint on what exactly went down during the election is so drastically skewed by propaganda that I think a bit of reorienting is probably a necessary device.

I kinda agree, except I think the two main factors are 1) the comey letter and 2) her poor strategy. The rest of the stuff is noise, especially the primary stuff imho. I dunno if there's a name for this phenomenon but it's one of those situations where people are offering up lots of (unnecessary) explanations for something just because no one predicted it.
---

>clinton
>admitting fault
---

Balrog0 posted...

COVxy posted...

My guess is that it's both.

The general public's viewpoint on what exactly went down during the election is so drastically skewed by propaganda that I think a bit of reorienting is probably a necessary device.

I kinda agree, except I think the two main factors are 1) the comey letter and 2) her poor strategy. The rest of the stuff is noise, especially the primary stuff imho. I dunno if there's a name for this phenomenon but it's one of those situations where people are offering up lots of (unnecessary) explanations for something just because no one predicted it.

agreed

getting mad over bernie's primary strategy when more of his voters supported her than her voters supported obama is really silly.
---

krazychao5 posted...

Funny how she blames the media. What did they do to make her lose? They were all pulling for her.

This might be her only legit blaming though probably for the wrong reason according to her. The media made it seem like she was such a slam dunk that many democrats didn't bother to vote. Democrat turnout was abysmal besides Cali and NY which were going blue anyway.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

This might be her only legit blaming though probably for the wrong reason according to her. The media made it seem like she was such a slam dunk that many democrats didn't bother to vote. Democrat turnout was abysmal besides Cali and NY which were going blue anyway.

this is definitely a possibility, though imo a more likely metric is that trump support was under-predicted because people were not responding honestly on surveys

the actual gap between surveys and turnout polling wasn't large, it didn't take a lot of that to swing things. 538 et al did present a path to victory for trump and simply noted it was very unlikely since clinton had a nontrivial lead in each state he needed. a 4% swing in each of those states resulted in the 0.1% victory margins that handed each over.
---

I figured she would whine about why she lost otherwise there isn't enough material to publish something worthwhile.
---

speaking of 538

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

just saw this
---

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

Biggest failure in U.S. election history.

Lol Hillary!

shockthemonkey posted...

krazychao5 posted...

Funny how she blames the media. What did they do to make her lose? They were all pulling for her.

Because they focused on scandals to the point of ignoring policy, which is a valid complaint.

Maybe she shouldn't have ran for President of the United States with all the scandals following her.
---

Balrog0 posted...

speaking of 538

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

just saw this

you are why i still come here thanks for finding this.
---

Clinton ran a mediocre campaign, didn't accurately forestall the influence of the far right on the American (well a certain demo of American electorate) and frankly was lured to sleep by how much of a general buffoon Trump was and the thought that he would have so many supporters, she frankly chose bad times to run in both 08 and '16 when demos weren't in her favor.
---

Balrog0 posted...

speaking of 538

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

just saw this

I stopped when the writers started discussing the role of the patriarchy in unfairly demanding that she go away. Does it turn into something meaningful later in the article, or is it more bullshit like that?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

speaking of 538

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

just saw this

I stopped when the writers started discussing the role of the patriarchy in unfairly demanding that she go away. Does it turn into something meaningful later in the article, or is it more bullshit like that?

Clinton was comically mediocre in her two presidential runs but yes sexism and our general dislike of female politicians certainly didn't help her.
---

coolboy11 posted...

Clinton was comically mediocre in her two presidential runs but yes sexism and our general dislike of female politicians certainly didn't help her.

Or maybe.... she was comically mediocre and that's it?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

krazychao5 posted...

Funny how she blames the media. What did they do to make her lose? They were all pulling for her.

Because they focused on scandals to the point of ignoring policy, which is a valid complaint.

LOL they ignored the email scandals as much as they could, they only covered it when they absolutely had too.

COVxy posted...

My guess is that it's both.

The general public's viewpoint on what exactly went down during the election is so drastically skewed by propaganda that I think a bit of reorienting is probably a necessary device.

What went down was a shit show of epic proportions. At one point Donald Trump basically called Ted Cruz a pussy on live TV and Marco Rubio insinuated that Trump had a small dick.

Basically no one cared about Hillary at all. The entire election was all about Trump from the start. No one likes Hillary Clinton, not even her supporters.
---

coolboy11 posted...

Clinton ran a mediocre campaign, didn't accurately forestall the influence of the far right on the American (well a certain demo of American electorate) and frankly was lured to sleep by how much of a general buffoon Trump was and the thought that he would have so many supporters, she frankly chose bad times to run in both 08 and '16 when demos weren't in her favor.

How's that kool-aid taste?

Or maybe she was the worst candidate we had ever seen.
---

If Hilary was black she would have won right?
---

s0nicfan posted...

I stopped when the writers started discussing the role of the patriarchy in unfairly demanding that she go away. Does it turn into something meaningful later in the article, or is it more bullshit like that?

I think it's pretty good, but I like these journalists and I didn't think that was ridiculous. actually, they say something later along these lines that I think is much worse*, so you'll probably hate it

*this exchange:

clare.malone: And that’s just because of years in the public eye, often not being viewed favorably — and, again, this is where you have to factor in some sexist societal views. But many critiques of her history in public life were also valid. We’re parsing here, I would note. I rate the emails as highly influential.

natesilver: Clinton has been viewed favorably at several points in her career. But usually they were points at which she didn’t threaten a man’s job or wasn’t otherwise being too ambitious.

pretty stupid, the times she's been popular have also been when the president she's married to or serving under is popular
---

Santorin posted...

coolboy11 posted...

Clinton ran a mediocre campaign, didn't accurately forestall the influence of the far right on the American (well a certain demo of American electorate) and frankly was lured to sleep by how much of a general buffoon Trump was and the thought that he would have so many supporters, she frankly chose bad times to run in both 08 and '16 when demos weren't in her favor.

How's that kool-aid taste?

Or maybe she was the worst candidate we had ever seen.

I'm lukewarm on Clinton she isn't far enough to the left for me and is too blinded by the status quo of America being "great" for most people to accurate asses the country like many Moderate Dems have suffer from ,but to state she is the worst candidate we have ever seen to a party that nominated Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the not too distance past and one in which a country governed by a reality star at the moment is laughable.
---

josifrees posted...

If Hilary was black she would have won right?

absouelty not, Obama was a perfect storm and has a very likable personality add in the fact that our country is even more prone to prejudice against Black women and the "scandals" y'all have invented for her and and a Black Hillary is done the 2nd week of the primaries.
---

Balrog0 posted...

pretty stupid, the times she's been popular have also been when the president she's married to or serving under is popular

My issue is the sexism angle is designed to completely divorce her from responsibility for the fact that she just has a shitty personality. "Oh, it's not that she's a selfish egomaniac without a shred of compassion who panders to anyone the moment it will benefit her... it's because she's a woman". She was "popular" when she was out of the spotlight, and unpopular when she was in it. That has more to do with the fact that when in the spotlight she has more opportunity to be a shitty person in public than it does her gender.
---

She was popular as secretary of state, which is being in the spotlight imo
---

So Nate silver is saying it is everyone's fault! Hillary is a perfect human being.
---

coolboy11 posted...

our country is even more prone to prejudice against Black women

lulz ok


---

Balrog0 posted...

She was popular as secretary of state, which is being in the spotlight imo

Not really, or at least not nearly to the level of candidate. There's a difference between people generally knowing you, and being on TV literally every day speaking.
---

PiOverlord posted...

So Nate silver is saying it is everyone's fault! Hillary is a perfect human being.

No, moreover pointing out that a large culmination of external factors made this a particularly hard election for her to win.

It's easy to pin all the blame on Clinton because she's unlikable. She has an impersonal personality, which makes it easy to mold her into suspect and evil. But it's a silly interpretation of what really happened. It's even questionable if she would have won if she ran the perfect campaign (mind you, she didn't) given all the factors against her.
---

COVxy posted...

given all the factors against her

I dunno, until like 9 p.m. on election night everyone was still sure she was gonna win. It's easy to monday morning quarterback (in either direction) especially when something unexpected happens
---

COVxy posted...

It's even questionable if she would have won if she ran the perfect campaign (mind you, she didn't) given all the factors against her.

i don't think that is quesitonable

her margin of defeat was really narrow
---

yeesh

Clinton’s Midwest strategy. In the book, Clinton says her campaign did not underinvest in the Midwest.

natesilver: So, I don’t totally buy that claim. Clinton definitely did underinvest in Michigan and Wisconsin (and Minnesota).

micah: Here’s the quote:

Some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning enough in the Midwest. And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple of thousand voters here or there.But let’s set the record straight: we always knew that the industrial Midwest was crucial to our success, just as it had been for Democrats for decades, and contrary to the popular narrative, we didn’t ignore those states.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I dunno, until like 9 p.m. on election night everyone was still sure she was gonna win. It's easy to monday morning quarterback (in either direction) especially when something unexpected happens

I'm not saying predictably. I was pretty certain she was going to win as well.

But the issue is that I was underestimating how much of an impact a lot of the ridiculous media coverage was really having an impact.

Darkman124 posted...

i don't think that is quesitonable

her margin of defeat was really narrow

Across the many states in which she lost. I think the point made about the demographics of the swing states, and their relative importance given our electoral college system in this other 538 post is very poignant:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

Second, demographics gave Trump a big advantage in the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, similar to George W. Bush’s margin of victory over John Kerry in 2004, after which Bush claimed to have earned a mandate. But she lost in the biggest popular vote-versus-Electoral College discrepancy since 1876. Although Trump has protested otherwise, this discrepancy does not appear to have been mainly the result of tactical choices made by the campaigns. Instead it reflected demographics: White voters without college degrees, by far Trump’s strongest demographic group, were disproportionately concentrated in swing states, while Clinton’s coalition of minorities and college-educated whites (but with declining turnout among black voters) produced huge gains for her in states such as California and Texas without winning her any additional electoral votes.

---

Balrog0 posted...

But let’s set the record straight: we always knew that the industrial Midwest was crucial to our success, just as it had been for Democrats for decades, and contrary to the popular narrative, we didn’t ignore those states.

uhhhhhhhhhhh
---