Talk:Robby Mook/Archives/2019
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
MOS:LEAD
To quote MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sentence currently at the end of the lead that Mook was criticized after HRC's 2016 loss needs to be expanded in the body of the article to provide information and NPOV for our readers. I would also like to prune the list of references provided, at least some of which do not support the claim in that particular sentence:
- Politico Nov 9, 2016: Mentions Mook's history with Clinton but does not criticize Mook for 2016 loss.[1]
- Politico December 14, 2016: This one criticizes Mook, a good representation of general criticism of campaign strategy in the early days when the role of Russian intel in Trump's targeting of Michigan was not understood.[2]
- Sam Stein, HuffPo November 16, 2016, basically repeats criticisms of previous Politico article but the name "Mook" never appears in the article. How is this an example of criticism of Mook? [3]
- NYT April 2017 Good reference for the claim, RS criticizes Mook explicitly and in detail (see quote)[4]
- National Review April 2017, reviews same book as NYT, doesn't add to info about Mook in NYT article[5]
- Podhoretz NY Post April 2017 Also based on Shattered presents same info as previous two source.[6]
- Dem strategist Stanley Greenberg reiterates Mook's reliance on data analytics rather than polling.[7]
I propose to add info based on two of these references to the article section on HRC 2016 campaign. Then the lead can reflect what the article says, which will be that Mook was criticized for over-reliance on data analytics, despite feedback from campaign teams in battleground states. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (November 9, 2016). "Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming". Politico. Arlington County, Virginia: Capitol News Company. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (December 14, 2016). "How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election". Politico. Arlington County, Virginia: Capitol News Company. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out "the model, the model," as they complain about it — guiding Mook's decisions on field, television, everything else.
- ^ Stein, Sam (November 16, 2016). "The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say". Huffington Post. New York City: Huffington Post Media Group. Retrieved April 19, 2017 – via Huff Post.
- ^ Kakutani, Michiko (April 17, 2017). "'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg". New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
As described in Shattered, Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook — who centered the Clinton operation on data analytics (information about voters, given to him by number crunchers) as opposed to more old-fashioned methods of polling, knocking on doors and trying to persuade undecideds — made one strategic mistake after another, but was kept on by Clinton, despite her own misgivings.
- ^ Geraghty, Jim (April 19, 2017). "Shattered Illusions". National Review. New York City: National Review Inc. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
We learn that Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, chose not to spend money on polling, relying instead on analytics surveys.
- ^ Podhoretz, John (April 18, 2017). "Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever". New York Post. New York City: News Corp. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
- ^ "How She Lost". Stanley B. Greenberg.
MOS:LEAD
To quote MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The sentence currently at the end of the lead that Mook was criticized after HRC's 2016 loss needs to be expanded in the body of the article to provide information and NPOV for our readers. I would also like to prune the list of references provided, at least some of which do not support the claim in that particular sentence:
- Politico Nov 9, 2016: Mentions Mook's history with Clinton but does not criticize Mook for 2016 loss.[1]
- Politico December 14, 2016: This one criticizes Mook, a good representation of general criticism of campaign strategy in the early days when the role of Russian intel in Trump's targeting of Michigan was not understood.[2]
- Sam Stein, HuffPo November 16, 2016, basically repeats criticisms of previous Politico article but the name "Mook" never appears in the article. How is this an example of criticism of Mook? [3]
- NYT April 2017 Good reference for the claim, RS criticizes Mook explicitly and in detail (see quote)[4]
- National Review April 2017, reviews same book as NYT, doesn't add to info about Mook in NYT article[5]
- Podhoretz NY Post April 2017 Also based on Shattered presents same info as previous two source.[6]
- Dem strategist Stanley Greenberg reiterates Mook's reliance on data analytics rather than polling.[7]
I propose to add info based on two of these references to the article section on HRC 2016 campaign. Then the lead can reflect what the article says, which will be that Mook was criticized for over-reliance on data analytics, despite feedback from campaign teams in battleground states. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (November 9, 2016). "Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming". Politico. Arlington County, Virginia: Capitol News Company. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
- ^ Dovere, Edward-Isaac (December 14, 2016). "How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election". Politico. Arlington County, Virginia: Capitol News Company. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out "the model, the model," as they complain about it — guiding Mook's decisions on field, television, everything else.
- ^ Stein, Sam (November 16, 2016). "The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say". Huffington Post. New York City: Huffington Post Media Group. Retrieved April 19, 2017 – via Huff Post.
- ^ Kakutani, Michiko (April 17, 2017). "'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg". New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
As described in Shattered, Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook — who centered the Clinton operation on data analytics (information about voters, given to him by number crunchers) as opposed to more old-fashioned methods of polling, knocking on doors and trying to persuade undecideds — made one strategic mistake after another, but was kept on by Clinton, despite her own misgivings.
- ^ Geraghty, Jim (April 19, 2017). "Shattered Illusions". National Review. New York City: National Review Inc. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
We learn that Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, chose not to spend money on polling, relying instead on analytics surveys.
- ^ Podhoretz, John (April 18, 2017). "Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever". New York Post. New York City: News Corp. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
- ^ "How She Lost". Stanley B. Greenberg.