Yogi Berra probably said good management doesn’t matter until it does and he would have been right on the money in the US election.
Kellyanne Conway out played, out coached and out smarted the team managing the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
Clinton”s Team missed the key element of the election:
In the nomination stage of this campaign it was very apparent that something dramatic was happening. At the rallies held by the Trump people , attendees were enraged at the establishment. That was the story of the day then as it is now.
Surprisingly during the election Clinton’s team didn’t take that seriously and every time they pulled out another establishment person to endorse Hilary I think it played into Trump’s hand and put another nail in the Clinton coffin.
Bad Debate Management
When I watched the debate Clinton listened very intently to Trump speaking and laying out his plan. This may have been okay in the first debate but she should have been coached not to do this . Why ? Because listening to him that intently gave his ideas credibility.
Bad poll Interpretation
Remember as you have heard throughout the campaign there are two so called sets of polls ; the external ones you read in the paper (more on those in another blog post) and the ones the candidate commissions .
Trump’s team read their numbers better ( why else would they spend the last weekend in Michigan) while Clinton’s team slipped up and never showed up in Wisconsin .
Bad Scandal Management
Clinton had a chance to come clean when the debate question scandal broke . She should have fired campaign chair John Podesta and said sorry to the American public then. By not doing that this just reinforced the public distrust in her.
Clinton’s team never laid out a vision or introduced her to the public.
You might not like Donald trump but at least you know who he was and where he stood. In fact this is another place where Clinton’s team played into Conway’s hands. They spent far too much time Trump bashing and not enough time introducing Hillary and laying out her vision. In fact the first time I saw the real Hillary Clinton I believe was in her concession speech this morning. Had her team showed that side of her she would have connected with more of the public.
This election was close. Numerous states turned on a percentage or two.
Good campaign management made the difference and Kellyanne Conway and her team are to be commended!
There is lots of talk among the general population about how they want the election process to be open, transparent and accountable.
People want there politicians to vote their ( constituents ) wishes and open the process to them so that they can see it at work.
Seems to have gone on deaf ears here in BC Liberal Surrey and the nomination process.
If rumors are true the recent nomination ( acclimation) of Stephanie Cadieux was an appointment, Marvin Hunt is being moved to another riding to run under an acclimation and tonight or soon newcomer and Sukh Dhaliwal crony, Puneet Sanhar, will be introduced/acclaimed in another riding.
The latter event apparently because Sukh was to be acclaimed but changed his mind in case he lost.
Given that these are fairly safe BC Liberal seats I am sure there would have been great nomination clashes should the process have been open.
Whatever happened to attracting good people to run in a nomination process and winning on their own merits?
This could be one of several factors in play by the time the election rolls around and they could conceivably lose these seats.
With the recent announcement by Dan Brooks of his intention to re-seek the the leadership of the BC Conservative Party, my readers have asked me a number of questions . They deserve answers.
One reader asked : Since Brooks quit and then announced his intention to run again, will he have to pay the $5000 entry fee? ( Why wouldn’t he, he quit the job causing the party to incur the cost of the leadership convention in the first place. )
Another reader asked: Since Brooks quit citing the lawsuit as one of the main reasons for stepping away does this mean the lawsuit is behind him and if it’s not will he quit again if it doesn’t go his way? ( I have no idea except to say that the whole thing is supposedly set for trial in November of 2016 and if things do not go his way quitting again would really leave the party in a lurch? Oh right. That’s happened once before.)
Another reader asked : If Brooks was implying that a settlement of his lawsuit was near, would he be so quick to give away his negotiating position in that lawsuit by announcing that the law suit didn’t bother him anymore and by extrapolation would he be so quick to give away the party’s in the event he was successful in the leadership race should he have to negotiate on their behalf for any reason? ( Who knows, you would have to ask Dan?)
A further reader asked : There are emails being sent out that contain Brooks endorsements. Does this mean Brooks has been vetted and given the green light? ( I don’t know, I don’t sit on the board.I have no have no idea where he got his email list. )
Finally a reader asked : The emails that have been sent out by the Brooks group ( including a news release) don’t give me an opportunity to unsubscribe. Doesn’t this violate Canada’s anti-spam legislation? ( I don’t know I am not a lawyer but the fines for breaching this are huge)
So it seems the Brooks candidacy has more questions than answers at this point from both the BC Conservative board and Dan Brooks.
I would imagine the answers will be forth coming soon.
I believe I am eminently qualified to render an opinion regarding this weeks latest Twitter gaffe by BC Liberal newly nominated candidate Randy Rinaldo.
Having been through the media gauntlet over the same issue in the 2013 provincial election and erring by firing them I can relate to the intensity of which the mainstream media will confront Campaign staff, managers , directors and candidates.
They play gotcha when a tweet or internet posting is discovered and then come at you to fire the candidate.
What we should have done then and what Rich Coleman ( He was the spokesperson) did right was keep the candidate in place and let the voters decide whether tweeting is a serious enough offense to cast their candidate ( Rinaldo) aside.
Make no mistake about it.
This is a winnable seat for the BC Liberals. They only lost last time by 743 votes.
It took the courage of Coleman’s Conviction ( and the party’s) to stand by their candidate.
In an interview with the CBC today NDP MP says that he is not prepared to announce whether he will run for the leadership of the NDP so quickly because it’s a 15-20 year commitment and that it the thought process leading up to his decision would take more than 24 hours.
Mr Cullen’s name has been bandied about for years regarding leadership aspirations and succession in the party. I can’t imagine he is just starting to think about it now.
Even more shocking is that he thinks it’s a 15-20 year commitment.
Enter the race now and run for leadership( fight off the leap manifesto) for the next 2 years
Win and fight for the next year in the run up to the 2019 election ( So far 2+1 =3)
Tomorrow the victim impact statements will take place in the case relating to the senseless killing of Maple Batalia.
It’s a shame that this happened and it’s a shame that every parent of a daughter in this country could not be there to show how this impacts them because they too are victims.
I am a father of daughters and I hope that the sentence in this case reflects society’s disgust for stalking and femicide.
Far to often pleas are accepted to close a file and save the family reliving the murder over and over again.
The problem with that is that sentences are more lenient and therefore other families who have daughters suffer through the very same moment.
I hope tomorrow, when the statements are read and the sentence is calculated, the court sends a message to the community, Maple’s family and yes Maple herself that this will no longer be tolerated and that Maple’s death has meaning.
The sentence should likely be life ( Maple’s family gets life without her) but not a moment less than 21 years with no eligibility for parole.
Maybe then the community will be a little safer and some of these monsters will think twice before committing the most heinous of crimes.