Hillary Scrambles To Find Leaks In Her Campaign

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,505
What, not a single word about the Russians?

Hillary camp scrambling to find out who leaked embarrassing info
By Emily Smith April 19, 2017 | 9:35pm


The knives are out in Hillary Clinton’s camp about who leaked embarrassing information to the authors of a bombshell new book about her “doomed presidential campaign.”

There is a witch hunt under way among Clinton’s presidential campaign staffers after the release of the autopsy book, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

We’re told the details in the book, which depicts the campaign as inept, “could only have come from someone in the inner circle.” Dennis Cheng, the finance director of Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been sending out messages to determine where the leaks came from.

One source said, “The knives are out to find the people who spoke about the campaign to the authors of this book. Dennis has been texting prominent campaign staffers, asking who talked. He’s on a witch hunt to find out who talked to save their own skin, throwing Hillary and her campaign manager Robby

Sad story continues here:

http://pagesix.com/2017/04/19/hilla...ng-info/?_ga=1.20549624.1905717848.1469015914
 
They need to bring Spicey Spice in. He's a leak plugger extraordinaire. "Okay everyone, nobody move, phones on the table". That worked really well.
 
They need to bring Spicey Spice in. He's a leak plugger extraordinaire. "Okay everyone, nobody move, phones on the table". That worked really well.

Could be Huma, she's writing a book she's going to ask two million for.
 
What, not a single word about the Russians?

Hillary camp scrambling to find out who leaked embarrassing info
By Emily Smith April 19, 2017 | 9:35pm


The knives are out in Hillary Clinton’s camp about who leaked embarrassing information to the authors of a bombshell new book about her “doomed presidential campaign.”

Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.
 
Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.

One has to admire King's optimism in the assumption that a turd can be picked up by the clean end.
 
I think "doomed" implies more than "unsuccessful," it implies "dysfunctional" or "ill-conceived," and the Clinton campaign wasn't.

No it doesn't. It means it was doomed, which it was. Besides, you said you don't see how anyone could call it that. Anyone who knows what doomed means would call it that.
You're trying to defend her campaign which is fine but come on.
 
I think "doomed" implies more than "unsuccessful," it implies "dysfunctional" or "ill-conceived," and the Clinton campaign wasn't.


Not really.

But even if it did, you know how dysfunctional and ill-conceived she had to be to blow a lead that big?

To lose a campaign to a washed up reality TV clown after it's been handed to you on a silver platter????

LOL, she practically started on the finish line and still lost.

Doesn't get much more dysfunctional or ill-conceived than that.
 
Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.

Doesn't really matter, does it? Their ground game and organization weren't good enough to win the election. They need to accept their participation trophy and just go the fuck away. Forever.
 
I think "doomed" implies more than "unsuccessful," it implies "dysfunctional" or "ill-conceived," and the Clinton campaign wasn't.

DOOMED simply means she had no chance to win from the start, that her loss was the clear and inevitable outcome from the beginning. Frankly it is easy to make that claim after the fact. Where were these writers during the actual campaign? All I ever heard was that she could not lose.
 
Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.

You keep saying that like is in any way relevant. It's like saying she lost the chest game but she made far more moves than her opponent. The object of the exercise that she clearly failed to achieve and that you still fail to understand was to cobble together enough votes in the electoral college by capturing the right combination of mostly winner-take-all winner States.

I can hear it already, when your 8.3-Million-Dollar-Man fails in his bid to keep a woman out of the House, you will be doing the arithmetic and loudly proclaiming that if you add his primary and General election totals, he was more "popular. It will be 100% true, and like Clinton's California popular vote fig leaf, completley meaningless.

If the popular vote mattered at all the entire strategy would have been different. More money would have been spent advertising in California and they sure as hell would have challenged lots and lots of precincts in California where significant voter fraud likely occured.

There also would be national photo voter ID and scruitiny of every single voter registration.

As it stands if some liberal bastion wants to let you legal aliens or felons or dead people vote it's none of anyone's national concern, you can do whatever you want with your State's voting standards.
 
You keep saying that like is in any way relevant. It's like saying she lost the chest game but she made far more moves than her opponent.

Chess is far too dignified an image for the 2016 election. Some game involving nerf bats and rubber chickens would be more fitting.
 
DOOMED simply means she had no chance to win from the start, that her loss was the clear and inevitable outcome from the beginning. Frankly it is easy to make that claim after the fact. Where were these writers during the actual campaign? All I ever heard was that she could not lose.

It doesn't have to mean they knew it was doomed. It applies after the fact also. Semantics tho. Has nothing to do with the actual argument.
 
Oreo doesn't get it and never will. His misplaced superiority complex makes him think he can explain anything, but the truth is nobody believes his nonsensical, bullshit rationalizations.
 
You keep saying that like is in any way relevant. It's like saying she lost the chest game but she made far more moves than her opponent. The object of the exercise that she clearly failed to achieve and that you still fail to understand was to cobble together enough votes in the electoral college by capturing the right combination of mostly winner-take-all winner States.

I can hear it already, when your 8.3-Million-Dollar-Man fails in his bid to keep a woman out of the House, you will be doing the arithmetic and loudly proclaiming that if you add his primary and General election totals, he was more "popular. It will be 100% true, and like Clinton's California popular vote fig leaf, completley meaningless.

If the popular vote mattered at all the entire strategy would have been different. More money would have been spent advertising in California and they sure as hell would have challenged lots and lots of precincts in California where significant voter fraud likely occured.

There also would be national photo voter ID and scruitiny of every single voter registration.

As it stands if some liberal bastion wants to let you legal aliens or felons or dead people vote it's none of anyone's national concern, you can do whatever you want with your State's voting standards.

You think Hillary has chest game? Damn, no wonder you struggle so much.
 
Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.

That's because you don't know what was going on inside her flawed campaign. This from the book's description at Amazon:

"It was never supposed to be this close. And of course she was supposed to win. How Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump is the tragic story of a sure thing gone off the rails. For every Comey revelation or hindsight acknowledgment about the electorate, no explanation of defeat can begin with anything other than the core problem of Hillary's campaign--the candidate herself.

Through deep access to insiders from the top to the bottom of the campaign, political writers Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes have reconstructed the key decisions and unseized opportunities, the well-intentioned misfires and the hidden thorns that turned a winnable contest into a devastating loss. Drawing on the authors' deep knowledge of Hillary from their previous book, the acclaimed biography"

I guess you are entitled to your illusions, however.:rolleyes:
 
Oreo doesn't get it and never will. His misplaced superiority complex makes him think he can explain anything, but the truth is nobody believes his nonsensical, bullshit rationalizations.

KingO labors impotently under the myth that popular vote actually means something in a presidential election.
 
Don't see how anyone could call it that; a campaign that won the popular vote was never "doomed." It was very well-organized with a good ground game.

I think "doomed" is the right word. She was the anointed. The Presidency was hers. Yet she loses to an unknown, inexperienced, incompetent one term senator then again to the most objectionable candidate to ever run for office.
Could her undesirability be any clearer. Say it out loud. Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. It's unbelievable. Doomed.
 
Back
Top