Hey, I used that term when Gentle Ben '16 hit the "campaign staff upheaval" iceberg. At least I'm being etymologically consistent.
Tell me this doesn't sound eerily familiar:
Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary here, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Clintons — stung by her narrow victory in Iowa — had been planning to reassess staffing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters after the first four primaries, but the Clintons have become increasingly caustic in their criticism of aides and demanded the reassessment sooner, a source told Politico.
Because nothing is ever Herself's fault, of course. So it's her aides and campaign staff's fault for not being capable of doing the impossible and actually getting her over with Democrat voters.
The talk of shake-up echoes what happened in 2008 – when [Mrs.] Clinton was on the verge of sacking her campaign manager and several top communications officials – before her surprise win [in New Hampshire] bailed out her beleaguered staff. Over time, however she slowly layered over top officials, essentially hiring old hands – like Hillaryland stalwart Maggie Williams and pollster Geoff Garin – to run the campaign while the previous staff were quietly relegated to subsidiary positions.
And she....still lost. Something that she should keep in mind, but of course will not.
Why? I've said it thousands of times by now, both here and on the air, and I'll say it again: Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in American political history. She is unlikable, unrelateable, arrogant, abrasive, imperious, royally hypocritical, and an abysmal, though promiscuous, liar. She's the "anti-Bill". Sick Willie could get elected Pope; Herself couldn't get elected dog-catcher.
Eight years ago she could rationalize that her defeat was a case of bad timing, that she ran in the same cycle as an idiot savant who had his skin color working for him as well, that it just wasn't meant to be, but that next time, in 2016, lightning couldn't possibly strike twice, and she would have her coronation. But now she's losing to a septuagenarian avowedly socialist white guy whose candidacy looked like a joke until he steadily overtook her in the polls as far back as last summer. It appears that the only way for Hillary Clinton to win the Democrat nomination is for her to not be just lightly opposed, but to be unopposed altogether. Which is proving to be as difficult as holding open a wormhole.
The reason for that is simple: Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in American political history. The problem is in her (cracked) mirror. Just like the witch in Snow White.
But we can always count on the "conventional wisdom" to adhere to the wishcastingly wrong answer every time. Currently, that teaches that Weekend Bernie was only able to compete with the Empress in Iowa and New Hampshire because he was able to spend all his time in just those two small States. When the campaign moves on to more and bigger States simultaneously, La Clinton Nostra's greater resources and organization will prevail.
And once again, the conventional wisdom is not giving Hillary's awfulness nearly enough credit:
After New Hampshire, though, the States get significantly more diverse; basically every one of the next couple dozen States to vote is less white than Iowa and New Hampshire.
We’ve called this [Mrs.] Clinton’s “nonwhite firewall.” Basically: More-diverse electorates start voting, and [Mrs.] Clinton has a better chance of putting together a series of wins and ending Bernie Sanders once and for all.
But while [Mrs.] Clinton might indeed be a shoo-in in South Carolina....
Or might not.
....that isn’t so clearly the case in Nevada.
Technically, Nevada is actually the more diverse State of the two. Non-Hispanic whites comprise just 51.5% in Nevada, compared to 64% in South Carolina. Nevada has many Hispanics, while South Carolina has a large black population.
But to assume that both play to [Mrs.] Clinton’s strengths in similar ways is to miss the point.
Which is that she doesn't HAVE any strengths. Not as a candidate, nor as a person. And did we mention that she's as white as Sanders? And that, as I've also said many times, the Democrats will never win another presidential election in which they don't nominate a minority candidate?
Her resources aren't enough. Her organization isn't enough. Her vagina isn't enough. Here aides aren't to blame. Hillary Clinton will never be the Democrat presidential nominee, much less POTUS, EVER, for one single, solitary, fat, saggy, jowly, manifestly and ubiquitously unpleasant reason: Hillary Clinton.
It's as simple as that.
Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg notwithstanding, of course.