How to Avoid Drawing the Wrong Picture of the World
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign had flaws in its leadership and operations that anyone who wants to see the world more clearly can learn from.
Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 presidential election was one of the most consequential crossroads in American politics. Donald Trump has transformed the presidency during both his terms, and not in ways that Clinton hoped to.
Shattered tells the long story of her campaign. It doesn’t begin with some of the obvious starting points like Clinton’s campaign strategy or Bernie Sanders’ primary challenge. The authors dedicate long sections to both topics, but the first wrong moment they explore is her campagin’s leadership.
Divided Leadership is Poor Leadership
Few people can boast a more accomplished career than Hillary Clinton. She was First Lady, a senator, the Secretary of State under the Obama adminsitration, and a philanthropist. Each of those positions broughout her in contact with impressive people who would be useful to her in her presidential run.
However, each of those people was at or near the top of their fields, making it difficult for any one to overrule the other. How was Hillary’s campaign manager Roger Mook supposed to tell Bill Clinton to shut up and let the campaign handle strategy?
Further, how were newcomers to what the authors call “Clintonland” supposed to compete with confidants like Huma Abedin, who had Hillary’s ear regardless of what her official title was? The Shattered authors summarized the campaign’s persistent weakness from the team’s formation:
“…their lines of authority were never that clear, and Hillary’s intimates could influence her on any particular issue at any moment. She had set up rival power centers everywhere. And no one had enough authority to make the others play nice. Nor was anyone empowered to both enforce Hillary’s will and tell her when she was wrong without fear of reprisal.”
How Should Politics Be Practiced?
One point of tension throughout the campaign was between Mook and Bill Clinton.
Mook approached the campaign through a heavily data-driven lens. His goal was to collect the most votes at the lowest cost. That strategy was successful during the primaries when he captured the maximum number of delegates for the minimum amount of cost. However, when he moved to the general election, Mook underfunded state ground teams that could have made the difference for Clinton in November.
Bill Clinton had a different view of politics. He was happy to use data to build strategies, but he also saw value in the intangible ability of presidential candidates to persuade voters. The authors explain:
“Having grown up in Arkansas, Bill understood that a major political player…could bridge ideological divides by just showing up in small towns that never got much attention from elected leaders. He liked to go to small towns in northern New Hampshire, Appalachia, and rural Florida because he believed, from experience, that going to them and acknowledging he knew how they lived their lives, and the way they made decisions, put points on the board.”
One of Hillary’s persistent struggles was understanding what voters were feeling. Trump tapped into the rage of voters who recovered more slowly from the 2008 financial crisis than the “elites” Trump ran against. Hillary’s campaign focused on her likely voters in urban areas, so she and Bill didn’t reach persuadable voters in suburban and rural areas.
Even if Bill’s approach didn’t flip red counties, he may have persuaded a few tens of thousands of crucial votes in the swing states that cost Hillary her electoral college victory.
Problems Revealed Themselves Early
From the unclear authority issues to the overreliance on data, the Clinton campaign had structural issues before it started. But Clinton had one problem she couldn’t overcome that a well-functioning team would struggle to solve:
“Here she was, six months into her campaign, having traveled the country, and she still didn’t quite grasp the underlying sentiments of the electorate. Sanders had tapped into feelings that she couldn’t access.”
Sanders ran against elites from the political left, tapping into the rage that Clinton failed to detect. Clinton also felt out of touch with the electorate a year into her campaign, signalling a much larger disconnect with voters than her leadership team could overcome.
Shattered has much to offer political junkies, but it’s also a great management book. The blockades to crucial information and cascade of bad decisions are valuable for anyone to understand.