Discussion: Report: Clinton Considering Staff Changes After New Hampshire Primary

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #245719

2

So out of curiosity, who exactly would Politico be talking to in order to get this sort of info? Who in the campaign would talk to them and why?

6 Likes
3

Don’t assume Politico is talking to anybody within the campaign. Politico is … well, Politico.

6 Likes
4

Axelrod always gets to right to the point.

Politico always hypes its point.

5 Likes
5

What do you suppose the odds are that Axelrod floated this rumor, just so he could comment on it?

This is a bit silly. I agree they have messaging and vision problems, but for all we know she’s about to have a strong showing in New Hampshire (however that’s defined), and go on to romp through SC, NV and Super Tuesday. So while she may be “considering” changes if needed, I doubt we’ll see anything dramatic, and certainly not anything sudden.

3 Likes
6

The six anonymous sources Politico spoke with…

This is where I tuned out.

10 Likes
7

I was thinking Bernie’s camp is floating it.

3 Likes
8

Uh oh. Hillary getting ready to implode again.

9

So, what exactly is Axelrod suggesting Clinton do - drop out? I’m not seeing exactly what he thinks is the answer to what he perceives as chaos. Or is he just being an a-hole as usual?

EDIT TO ADD: It was always a foregone conclusion that she would lose the NH primary because it’s a state that neighbors Sanders’. This ONLY issue is by how much. This wouldn’t be enough for her to start tossing people overboard.

5 Likes
10

Sounds like he’s saying that maybe HRC is being an a-hole, as usual?

11

No that’s your job.

1 Like
12

"messaging and vision problems’? A sure sign that there are no sincerely held beliefs on which to build any message except “it’s my turn”.

2 Likes
13

Except that HRC was WAY ahead in New Hampshire at the beginning of the race… so, apparently, that’s not the case.

1 Like
14

Politico has been pretty spot on concerning coverage of republican campaigns. So far they have been missing the boats entirely on the Democratic side.

In both cases they rely heavily on “anonymous” sources.

For my own part, I don’t get that sense of chaos and impending doom at all from the Hillary campaign. This actually sounds more like they are planning on gearing up their campaign, expanding staff and roles, than an actual shake up. That would also be pretty consistent with the strategy they have laid out for months…get through Iowa and NH, which are favorable to Bernie, and then pedal to the metal once the campaigns head south to more favorable Clinton territory, and the pace at which elections happen sharply increases.

10 Likes
15

Who would talk to them? Leakers are people who have one or more of the following possible motives;

  1. They feel personally, professionally threatened by the possibility of change
  2. People who have a personal axe to grind against a particular person.
  3. People floating trial balloons for their bosses (not the case here)
  4. People trying to torpedo a thing their boss is thinking of doing that they don’t want their boss to do but don’t have the pull to stop (a motive which is commonly combined with one of the others)
  5. People who’ve become privy to information that troubles their conscience and/or have had some kind of semi-delusional prophetic vision
  6. People who have a need to feel more important than they really are, making them susceptible to loose talk to reporters when the proper flattery buttons are punched.
  7. People looking to backstab a coworker or superior in order to climb over they corpse.
  8. People deliberately sent out to lie by their bosses for any number of reasons.

My bet in this case is 1, 4 and 6, though 7 can’t be discounted. In particular, though, I’m guessing someone who has a job to him or herself who doesn’t want his or her responsibility diluted.

8 Likes
16

My guess is more likely that a reporter had a conversation/overhead a conversation about a staff expansion and figured it would garner more clicks by describing it as a shake up.

4 Likes
17

“The idea is that we need a more forward-looking message, for the primary – but also for the general election too”

What have a been fucking saying, you twits? Finally…a light goes on in Clintonopia…

1 Like
18
  1. people who have an impending sense of doom for the enterprise they are attached to.
1 Like
19

That’s how I read it. Politico takes a “we’re muscling up for a tougher fight than we expected” and turns it into “Chaos and Disarray in Clintonland,” because that’s their goto narrative here, and then reaches out to reliable blabbermouths like Lanny Davis and one or two other old Clinton hands or donors who’s asses are chapped because they’re not in the inner circle (or, in Lanny’s case, the outer circle, I suspect) for “confirmation.”

11 Likes
20

Well it didn’t seem like a foregone conclusion back when she had huge leads in some of the NH polls back in May and June. And the “neighbor-state” effect for New Hampshire turns out to be rather overblown.

The demographic argument, on the other hand (that Iowa and New Hampshire are just outliers because they are overwhelmingly white, remains viable unless/until Bernie starts to make more significant inroads with minority voters. And that will be put to the test quite soon.

[Edit: I do agree she’s not likely to throw anyone overboard over poor-to-middling NH results. But if their internal; polling shows any significant erosion of the supposed firewall among minority voters then I think she will at least want some “fresh eyes” on the problem. Still doesn’t necessarily mean a big staff shake-up. (If she were to actually lose, or nearly lose, in SC, now that would probably call for a full-on staff shake-up and strategy re-think …but that still seems very unlikely.)]

2 Likes