Introduction
The 2016 U.S. presidential election was one of the most shocking and consequential in modern history. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State, was widely expected to win and become the first female president. Instead, she suffered a stunning defeat to Republican outsider Donald Trump.
In "Shattered," journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes provide an inside look at Clinton's campaign and attempt to unravel the reasons for her unexpected loss. Drawing on extensive interviews with campaign staff and insiders, they paint a picture of a dysfunctional operation plagued by infighting, poor strategy, and a candidate who struggled to articulate a compelling message.
This summary explores the key themes and revelations from the book, providing insight into the factors that contributed to Clinton's defeat. From her initial reluctance to run to the final days of the campaign, it chronicles the missteps, controversies, and external events that shaped the outcome. While there was no single decisive factor, the authors argue that many of Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted and stemmed from fundamental flaws in her candidacy and campaign.
Clinton's Decision to Run
As the 2016 election approached, Hillary Clinton was initially hesitant about launching another presidential campaign. Her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary had been painful, and she was wary of going through that grueling process again. However, several factors ultimately convinced her to run:
Obama still had relatively high approval ratings, and Clinton's tenure as his Secretary of State positioned her as a natural successor to continue his legacy.
Democrats believed they had a lock on the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, thanks to what they called the "Blue Wall" - a series of states that had consistently voted Democratic since 1992.
The party had a broad network of congressional politicians across the country, many of whom supported the Clintons and could help turn out voters.
With these advantages in mind, Clinton officially announced her candidacy on June 13, 2015. However, from the very beginning, her campaign struggled to articulate a clear and compelling rationale for why she was running.
A Muddled Message
One of the persistent problems that dogged Clinton's campaign was the lack of an inspiring message or narrative. Successful candidates need to clearly communicate to voters why they're running and how they'll lead the country. Clinton's campaign never managed to do this effectively.
Her first campaign speech exemplified this problem. It was written by at least five different people, all trying to shape it into something coherent. The result felt contrived and confused, with unmemorable lines like "America can't succeed unless you succeed" and "I want to make our economy work for you and every American."
These vague platitudes failed to resonate with voters or shake the perception that Clinton felt entitled to be president. The campaign would continue to struggle with messaging throughout the election, never finding a clear theme that could match the simple but powerful slogans of her opponents.
The Email Scandal
Perhaps no single issue caused more persistent problems for Clinton's campaign than the controversy over her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. This scandal erupted in early 2015 and haunted her candidacy until the very end.
The issue first came to light during a congressional investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. It was revealed that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account linked to a private server for official State Department business, rather than a government account.
This led to an FBI investigation into whether classified information had been mishandled. While Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of work-related emails, the controversy raised questions about transparency and judgment that would dog her throughout the campaign.
In July 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Clinton and her staff had been "extremely careless," no criminal charges would be filed. However, his harsh criticism and the ongoing drip of revelations kept the issue in the headlines.
The email scandal proved particularly damaging because it played into existing narratives about Clinton being secretive and untrustworthy. Even when new email-related stories emerged that had nothing to do with her server (like the hacking of the DNC), they got mentally lumped together by many voters under the broad heading of "Clinton email problems."
The Sanders Challenge
One of the biggest surprises of the Democratic primary was the strength of the challenge posed by Bernie Sanders, the 74-year-old senator from Vermont. Clinton and her team severely underestimated Sanders and the populist movement he tapped into.
Like Donald Trump on the Republican side, Sanders capitalized on anti-establishment sentiment that had been building since the 2008 financial crisis. His calls for dramatic change - including free college tuition, universal healthcare, and breaking up big banks - resonated strongly with many voters, especially young people.
Clinton viewed many of Sanders' proposals as unrealistic and too "socialist" for the general electorate. But his concrete policy ideas contrasted favorably with Clinton's more vague, aspirational rhetoric. Voters were deeply moved by his passion and authenticity.
Sanders' anti-corruption message also put Clinton in a difficult position. As someone seen as part of the political establishment, she couldn't easily attack his outsider appeal without seeming defensive. But she also couldn't fully embrace his critiques of the system without seeming insincere.
The intensity of the primary battle with Sanders left lasting scars on Clinton's campaign. It pushed her further to the left ideologically, potentially hurting her appeal with moderate voters. It also left many Sanders supporters feeling bitter and reluctant to enthusiastically back Clinton in the general election.
Campaign Infighting
One of the persistent issues plaguing Clinton's campaign was infighting and power struggles among her top advisors. This created a dysfunctional environment that made it difficult to make decisions and execute strategy effectively.
Some key players involved in the internal conflicts:
- Robby Mook: The young, data-focused campaign manager who led the "Mook Mafia"
- John Podesta: The veteran political operative serving as campaign chairman
- Huma Abedin: Clinton's close personal aide who led the "State Crew" traveling with the candidate
- Jennifer Palmieri: Head of the communications team
These various factions frequently clashed over strategy, messaging, and resource allocation. The infighting got so bad that Clinton eventually created a "Super Six" group of top advisors meant to streamline decision-making. However, this failed to fully resolve the conflicts.
The internal divisions led to information being guarded rather than shared freely. This caused problems like the campaign's bungled response when Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia late in the race. The lack of communication allowed Trump to seize on the incident as evidence she was physically unfit for office.
Overall, the constant power struggles diluted the campaign's effectiveness and made it difficult to craft and stick to a coherent strategy. This was a major contrast with the more disciplined Obama campaigns that had defeated Clinton in 2008.
Over-Reliance on Analytics
One of the defining features of Clinton's 2016 campaign was its heavy reliance on data analytics to drive strategy and resource allocation. This approach was championed by campaign manager Robby Mook, who had used it successfully in other races.
The focus on data and efficiency came at the expense of more traditional campaigning methods:
- Door-to-door canvassing and volunteer organizing were de-emphasized in favor of targeted digital outreach.
- The campaign avoided investing resources in states that weren't deemed absolutely necessary to reach 270 electoral votes.
- Decisions about messaging and ad buys were driven primarily by polling and models rather than on-the-ground feel.
While this data-driven approach helped Clinton secure the delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, it proved shortsighted in the general election. By ignoring states like Wisconsin that weren't seen as must-wins, the campaign missed warning signs of weakening Democratic support in the Midwest.
The over-reliance on analytics also distracted from bigger picture issues like the lack of a compelling overall narrative for Clinton's candidacy. By focusing on incremental efficiency gains, the campaign lost sight of the importance of inspiration and emotional connection with voters.
In the end, the statistical models that showed Clinton as a heavy favorite proved to be fatally flawed. The election results exposed the limits of a purely data-driven approach that didn't account for intangible factors and on-the-ground realities.
Convention Bounce and Debate Performance
Despite the various issues plaguing her campaign, Clinton did experience some high points that temporarily boosted her standing. The Democratic National Convention in late July gave her a significant bump in the polls, pushing her to an 8-point lead over Trump.
While there was some messiness at the convention due to disgruntled Sanders supporters, powerful speeches by Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, and others helped rally the party faithful. The most impactful moment came from Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a Muslim American soldier killed in Iraq, who delivered a stinging rebuke to Trump's proposed Muslim ban.
Clinton also generally performed well in the televised debates against Trump, particularly the first one on September 26. She was able to effectively highlight Trump's history of offensive comments about women, quoting his own words back to him. This helped her regain some momentum after a rough stretch in early September when she made her infamous "basket of deplorables" comment about Trump supporters.
However, these high points proved to be temporary. Clinton was never able to sustain a commanding lead for long, as controversies and external events repeatedly knocked her off message and eroded her support.
October Surprises
The final month of the campaign saw a dizzying series of October surprises that rocked both campaigns and left the outcome highly uncertain heading into Election Day.
On October 7, three major events occurred in rapid succession:
News broke that Russian hackers had infiltrated DNC emails, raising concerns about foreign interference.
The Washington Post released the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape showing Trump bragging about sexual assault.
Wikileaks began releasing hacked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
While the Trump tape was seen as potentially campaign-ending, it ultimately did not shift the race as dramatically as expected. Many voters already viewed Trump negatively and were not swayed by this additional evidence.
The steady drip of hacked emails from Wikileaks, however, kept Clinton on the defensive and reinforced existing narratives about her being untrustworthy.
Then on October 28, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing that new emails potentially related to the Clinton server investigation had been discovered. While this ultimately led nowhere, the headlines in the final days of the race were deeply damaging to Clinton.
This confluence of events in October created a highly volatile and unpredictable environment heading into Election Day. Clinton's campaign struggled to find its footing amid the barrage of negative stories.
Election Day Shock
As November 8 dawned, the Clinton campaign was confident of victory. Every major poll showed her with a lead, and most political analysts considered a Trump win nearly impossible. This sense of assurance led to complacency and a failure to recognize warning signs in key swing states.
The shock among Clinton and her team as the results came in election night was palpable. Various factors were quickly identified as contributing to the loss:
- Lower than expected turnout among African-American voters
- Stronger than expected support for Trump among white suburban voters
- Lingering anger over the FBI investigation and Comey letter
- Misogyny and sexism working against the first female nominee
Bill Clinton saw parallels to the recent Brexit vote in the UK - another instance where populist anger defied the predictions of analysts and elites.
In reality, there was no single decisive factor that swung the election. It was a death by a thousand cuts, with Clinton's various vulnerabilities and missteps combining with external events and larger forces to produce a perfect storm.
Some key tactical errors stood out in hindsight:
- The failure to campaign aggressively in Wisconsin, Michigan and other Rust Belt states
- Over-reliance on analytics at the expense of on-the-ground organizing
- Inability to craft an inspiring message, especially for working-class voters
But ultimately, much of the blame rested with Clinton herself. Her inability to articulate a clear rationale for her candidacy, ethical controversies like the email server and paid speeches, and failure to connect emotionally with voters proved too much to overcome.
Final Thoughts
"Shattered" provides a compelling insider account of how a campaign that seemed destined for victory somehow ended in stunning defeat. While external factors like Russian interference and FBI actions played a role, the authors argue persuasively that many of Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted.
The book highlights several key lessons for future campaigns:
The importance of a clear, inspiring message that resonates emotionally with voters
The need to balance data and analytics with old-fashioned retail politicking and grassroots organizing
The danger of infighting and the need for a unified team with clear lines of authority
The difficulty of running as a change candidate while defending the status quo
The challenges facing female candidates in overcoming gender stereotypes and double standards
Ultimately, Clinton's loss stemmed from a toxic combination of factors - some within her control, others not. Her campaign's failures magnified her existing vulnerabilities and left her unable to overcome the headwinds she faced.
While we can never know for certain how things might have played out differently, "Shattered" makes a strong case that with better strategy and execution, Clinton could have emerged victorious. Instead, her defeat cleared the way for one of the most unconventional and consequential presidencies in American history.
The 2016 election will be studied and debated for years to come. "Shattered" provides invaluable insight into the inner workings of a presidential campaign and the myriad ways things can go wrong. It's essential reading for anyone seeking to understand this pivotal moment in American political history.
Key Takeaways
Clinton's campaign lacked a clear, compelling message about why she was running and how she would lead the country.
The email server controversy dogged Clinton throughout the campaign, reinforcing existing doubts about her trustworthiness.
Bernie Sanders posed a more serious challenge than expected, tapping into anti-establishment sentiment Clinton struggled to counter.
Infighting among top campaign staff led to dysfunction and poor decision-making.
Over-reliance on data analytics came at the expense of traditional grassroots organizing in key states.
External events in October, including the Comey letter and Wikileaks releases, created volatility in the final stretch.
Clinton and her team were overconfident heading into Election Day, missing warning signs in key swing states.
There was no single factor responsible for Clinton's loss, but rather a perfect storm of vulnerabilities, missteps, and external challenges.
Many of Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted, stemming from her own choices and campaign strategy.
The inability to articulate an inspiring vision and connect emotionally with voters was perhaps Clinton's most fundamental failure.
In the end, "Shattered" portrays a campaign that was structurally flawed from the beginning and never managed to correct course. While Clinton faced significant headwinds, many of her biggest obstacles were of her own making. The book serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of running a presidential campaign without a clear message or unified team. It will likely be studied by political operatives and candidates for years to come as an example of how even the most qualified and well-resourced campaigns can go off the rails.