Mediaboss Marketing

Michigan was supposed to be a clean victory for the former secretary of state, proving that she could win across the country and put her on a quick path to the Democratic nomination. But when polls closed and it became clear that the race against Bernie Sanders would be a nail-biter, the second-guessing among Clinton's allies kicked into full gear.

In the days ahead of the primary, Clinton repeatedly hammered Sanders over his 2009 vote against a bailout for the U.S. auto industry, calculating that the line of attack would resonate in a state that's home to the country's largest car manufacturers. But by Tuesday night, some Michigan Democrats aligned with Clinton's campaign said privately they think that strategy did not work as they intended.

CNN exit polls showed that Sanders outperformed Clinton among voters who are "very worried" about the U.S. economy, 56% to 40%. Among voters who believe international trade takes away American jobs, Sanders also led Clinton, 56% to 43% a sign that Sanders' populist economic message resonated in Michigan.

In another troubling sign for the Clinton campaign, among voters who said their most important priority in a presidential candidate is that they are honest and trustworthy, Sanders overwhelmingly outperformed Clinton, 80% to 19%.

Some supporters pointed to the fact that, in contrast to Sanders, Clinton had only campaigned in Detroit, Flint and Grand Rapids. After campaigning tirelessly in Nevada and South Carolina, Clinton's schedule in Michigan seemed less packed.

The hand-wringing inside the Clinton circle also included the concern that perhaps the campaign had lost sight of winning the Democratic nomination and started looking ahead at the general election too soon.

"They didn't take Sanders for granted as much as voters," said one top Democrat close to the campaign.

Clinton told supporters on Monday that "the sooner I could become your nominee, the more I could begin to turn my attention to the Republicans."

Clinton's aides seemed to anticipate the potential of a Michigan loss. A memo last week from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook noted "even if Sen. Sanders were able to eke out a victory (in Michigan), we would still net more delegates in Mississippi, which holds its election on the same night."

Indeed, Clinton actually won more delegates than Sanders on Tuesday, according to a CNN estimate, picking up 84 to Sanders' 67. She now has 1,234 of the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination. That figure includes super delegates, party officials and office holders who have said they will back her.

Sanders has 567 delegates overall.

As it began to dawn on the Clinton campaign that the Michigan contest would be much tighter than it had anticipated, Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communication director, said that demographics were partly to blame.

"Michigan looks a lot like states that Sen. Sanders does well in. The Democratic vote is only about 75% white -- that is always coming in at a disadvantage to us," Palmieri told reporters Tuesday night in Ohio.

Palmieri added that at the end of the day, the campaign still felt "confident she is going to be the nominee."

Sanders' performance in Michigan gives the senator's campaign a fresh boost of optimism. Particularly after losing by big margins to Clinton in a state like South Carolina, where he had made aggressive outreach to the African-American community, one of his main challenges is to show that he can win over a more diverse electorate.

Clinton's struggles in Michigan will be particularly worrisome as the campaign aims to win neighboring Ohio on March 15.

But on Tuesday night, Palmieri denied that the tightness in Michigan indicates potential problems for Clinton in Ohio, arguing that Clinton's message on jobs, the auto bailout and the Republican Party can deliver them the Buckeye State.

"We think that she came into Michigan with a very strong economic agenda and message about how she would create jobs and put manufacturing sector around clean energy, also how she would help create small businesses, very future-oriented," Palmieri said. "We don't think Senator Sanders offered that and we think that that will be effective in Ohio."

Sanders acknowledged that the Michigan vote was close but thanked voters for "repudiating" polls that indicated Clinton had stronger support in the state.

"What tonight means is that the Bernie Sanders campaign, the people's revolution that we're talking about, the political revolution that we're talking about, is strong in every part of the country," Sanders said. "And, frankly, we believe our strongest areas are yet to happen."

Read the rest here:
What went wrong for Hillary Clinton? - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders before the debate in Flint, Michigan, on Sunday.

Geoff Robins/Getty Images

Were at the point in the Democratic primary where theres little to learn from additional debates. This was true on Sunday, when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders faced off in Flint, Michigan, ahead of the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Going into the event, we knew that Bernie Sanders would announce his stand against the millionaires and billionaires and call for a government that works for the people, rather than Wall Street or corporate America.

Jamelle Bouie isSlates chief political correspondent.

Likewise, we knew Hillary Clinton would hesitate on big questions, instinctively choosing the more cautious option when confronted with a tough challenge. When an audience member asked Clinton what she would do to keep jobs in the United States rather than being shipped overseas, she replied with small measures to nudge manufacturers in her direction. Were going to have a very clear set of proposals and incentives for manufacturing so that we change the way that companies think about making investments again in America, she said. Sanders, by contrast, took a broad swing. Look, I was on a picket line in [the] early 1990s against NAFTA because you didnt need a Ph.D. in economics to understand that American workers should not be forced to compete against people in Mexico making 25 cents an hour, he said in a broadside against trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement that have been backed by Bill Clinton.

We even knew there would be occasional conflict between the two candidates, as they skirmished for command of the stage (compared, it should be said, to the outright battle royal of the latest Republican debate). Bernie refused to cede the stage to Hillary on multiple occasions, wrote my Slate colleague Josh Voorhees, and he went out of his way to press her on her refusal to release transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street institutions like Goldman Sachs.

But, as viewers, we can learn from debates even when they cover familiar ground. And the Flint debate, in particular, illustrates an important difference between Clinton and Sanders thats often overlooked in coverage of the two candidates but that goes a long way in explaining their campaigns and their positions. In short, Hillary Clinton is running to lead Democrats, and Bernie Sanders is running to lead liberals.

Primaries obscure this, but parties are far more than their voters. They are the volunteers that give time, the donors that give money, the local and state officials that build organizations, the recruiters that find candidates, etc. They are also loose coalitions of groups and interests that work in tandem for common goals and, equally, work against each other for particular gains. Some are more powerful than others, and that influences the broad direction and shape of the parties.

In addition to chief executive and commander in chief, the president of the United States is also the leader of his or her party. And as much as anything else, the president has to navigate these groups and interests, as well as communicate with other party members, from congressional leaders to local and state party officials. Its why, to that point, the vice president often takes the lead in campaigning and fundraising for down ballot racesit is a show of commitment from the White House to the broader Democratic Party. Ambitious lawmakers do the same, campaigning for candidates and colleagues around the country. Its why Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example, stumped for Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in 2014. Or why West Virginias Joe Manchin did the same for Louisianas Mary Landrieu.

Presidential candidates hold a unique role. As prospective leaders of the national party, they set the tone for everyone on the ballot. What the presidential candidate (or nominee) says affects how House, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates shape their campaigns.

Which brings us back to Hillary and Bernie. In the last hour of the Flint debate, a questioner pushed the candidates on fracking. Clinton equivocated. [B]y the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place, she said. And I think thats the best approach, because right now, there [are] places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. Sanders, by contrast, was more direct: My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.

You can read this as political cowardice from Clinton and courage from Sanders; or as evidence of their ties to entrenched interests (or lack thereof); or of Clintons cautious moderation and Sanders ambitious liberalism. But I think you can also read it as a reflection of their different positions in the Democratic primary, and their different goals as candidates.

Hillary Clinton, a prominent leader from the ideological center of the Democratic Party, is running to lead the Democratic coalition as it exists. She wants to lead the party as much as she wants to be president. Which makes her more attentive to traditional party buildingshes pledged to devote resources to boosting state parties and candidatesand more cautious with her rhetoric. Liberals in the Democratic coalition are opposed to fracking, but many rural and purple state Democrats arent. Clinton doesnt want to alienate either, so she tries to satisfy both.

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, comes from the left wing of American politics with a nominal attachment to the Democratic Partyuntil his run for the presidency, he didnt identify as a Democrat. Hes not as concerned with the usual party building and coalition maintenance. He wants to change the terms of the institution that is the Democratic Party and put ideological liberals at the fulcrum of Democratic politics, in the same way that ideological conservatives sit at the center of Republican politics. And so, his appeals are broad and expansive. He doesnt worry about details as much as he focuses on energizing like-minded voters. Rather than trying to satisfy Democrats in conservative places, Sanders is trying to reduce their influence by attracting sympathetic voters (his political revolution).

The problem for Sanders is that ideological liberals are one faction among many, and they compete for influence with party stalwarts like union members and black Americans, who offer support based on transactionwhat can you do for the interests of our specific groupas much as belief. To win on his terms, Sanders has to grow the space for ideological politics in those groups and satisfy its more moderate and conservative members. This is hard (I call them stalwarts for a reason), and its why Sanders has had a hard time in states where they play an important part.

But the problem for Clinton is that the Democratic Party isnt just a loose coalition of interests. Its more liberal than it has ever been, with a much larger space for progressive politics and action. And as Sanders has shown among white Democrats in the Northeast, and among young Democrats nationwide, that space is growing. This makes Clintona transactional politician who sits at the ideological centeran uncomfortable fit, who appeals to stalwarts and interest groups (like banks and industry) far more than voters who choose on ideology and belief.

This isnt a clean division. On guns, for example, Sanders has had to play the transactional politician to win in Vermont while Clinton has taken an ideological tack as a way to damage Sanders with liberals and tarnish his appeal as a purer politician. And this isnt a conversation of pragmatism versus idealism. Ideological solutions can be pragmaticadvocates would say this for the public option in health care reformwhile Clintons Democratic centrism represents a particular ideology of market capitalism as much as it exists to bridge party divides.

But if youre looking for a way to describe the current state of the Democratic race, this is it: a presumptive coalition leader versus a prospective ideological one.

Follow this link:
The real difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie.

Hillary Clinton shot her upcoming appearance on Broad City back in December but the show's stars are still feeling the buzz from the unlikely cameo.

"We've had some amazing guests stars, but this is a whole other level," Abbi Jacobson told me at Marie Claire's SXSW party for her and Ilana Glazer.

"She's like an A-list historical figure," Glazer said. "Meeting her? It was a trip. It was wild."

The presidential hopeful was on set for about 45 minutes. "We were like, 'Thank God,' because she shouldn't be on our show for too long," Jacobson said with a laugh. "There are probably more important things for her to be doing."

They did get to talk to Clinton in between takes.

READ: Hillary Clinton's Scandal Set Visit Delights Your Favorite Gladiators

"We were shooting and then we had to reset the camera for a different take and we were just chatting, just three girls chatting," Jacobson said.

What did they chat about?!

"We talked about Cynthia Nixon and Sex and the City," Glazer said.

What?!

"Cynthia is on the same episode," Glazer said. "[Clinton] was like, 'I like her.'"

Glazer doesn't think they'll be campaigning for Clinton anytime soonnot because they don't support her.

"I don't know if that's helpful," she said. "We're these pot smoking characters."

But Glazer is happy to to say, "Now she knows Broad City. I think maybe if someone mentions it, she may be like, 'I think I was on that show.'"

PHOTOS: Stars Meet the President

RELATED VIDEOS:

The rest is here:
Hillary Clinton Talked About What With Broad City Stars ...

7 Candidates Exposed Leaked Tax Returns Show Who's Rich, Who Gives Back, & Who Could Be Hiding Something!

PLUS who's the biggest moneybags of them all!

Posted Mar 11, 2016 @ 16:39PM

But she saved her most shocking comment for Donald Trump!

Posted Mar 11, 2016 @ 14:10PM

The prez hopeful's email scandal may be her downfall after all!

Posted Mar 11, 2016 @ 13:31PM

See the damning evidence against Clinton.

Posted Mar 10, 2016 @ 14:18PM

Get the juicy details.

Posted Mar 10, 2016 @ 9:30AM

It's the most disgusting moment of the campaign so far.

Posted Mar 8, 2016 @ 14:52PM

From Hillary to Ted Cruz, the stars REALLY don't want these people to be president.

Posted Mar 8, 2016 @ 6:56AM

Presidential hopeful 'covered up his misdeeds for her own political ambition.'

Posted Feb 25, 2016 @ 7:14AM

Presidential candidate vying for 18-year-old's support to help ailing campaign.

Posted Feb 20, 2016 @ 10:30AM

See proof Jeffrey Epstein's prosecutor supports Clinton.

Posted Feb 8, 2016 @ 7:14AM

Get the details on RadarOnline.com.

Posted Feb 2, 2016 @ 10:28AM

Find out why she's telling her story now.

Posted Jan 17, 2016 @ 18:12PM

Get the latest on her second child-to-be!

Posted Dec 28, 2015 @ 8:11AM

Click through to see the lies, sex scandals, racist rants and more.

Posted Dec 23, 2015 @ 7:11AM

Get a glimpse of the expecting mother's new baby bump.

Posted Dec 22, 2015 @ 10:41AM

The love affair that could sink her presidential campaign.

Posted Dec 14, 2015 @ 7:11AM

Get the details on her latest released secrets.

Posted Dec 1, 2015 @ 11:24AM

The former president was also allegedly tested for HIV.

Posted Nov 30, 2015 @ 10:46AM

From technology to scheduling, this democratic front-runner can't get it together!

Posted Nov 17, 2015 @ 11:53AM

See the presidential candidate's epic #TBT snap.

Posted Nov 6, 2015 @ 7:56AM

What did Hillary think?

Posted Nov 5, 2015 @ 14:43PM

View post:
Hillary Clinton News | Radar Online

Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral.

But Nancy Reagan's husband, President Ronald Reagan, didn't deliver a major speech on the epidemic until 1987, six years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease. Many in the gay community have criticized Reagan for not doing more to respond to the AIDS outbreak during his presidency.

Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked the Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist.

Clinton soon after tweeted an apology.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."

Griffin's shot at Clinton is noteworthy given the gay rights activist's ties to the Democratic family. He campaigned with Clinton in Iowa in January.

In the MSNBC interview Clinton, unprompted, heralded Reagan's activism.

"The other point to make, too, is it may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s," Clinton said. "And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it."

Clinton added: "Nobody wanted to do anything about it. And, you know, that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this, too."

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a ...