If Trump is the nominee, the Republicans have already started ripping him apart. Does anyone really think Clinton doesn’t have the campaign operatives to tear down Trump? And the continual “Clinton is weak” is from people who already don’t like her. She’s been vetted for the past three decades, there’s not much new she’ll face in the general. This is not to say she can’t lose - outside factors or the email investigation going horribly wrong (or right I guess depending on your perspective) can sink her. But all things being equal, she’ll have the advantage. McConnell has already said they’ll go negative against their own nominee in order to save the Senate is telling - Trump may not have the support of the Party.
A Clemson poll had her up that much.
This. She’s had people throwing shit at her for as long as some of the folks reading this have been alive. As I noted when I was the most grouchy anti-Clintonite ever in 2008…she fights. She’s a grinder. I just don’t think she’s going to be intimidated at all by Donald Trump.
Hillary will absolutely fight, but she will still be a turnout machine for the GOP. Decades of propaganda ensure that. Trump would also produce an enormous amount of anti-Trump turnout. And there are questions within each base. How many democrat voters would sit home, angry that “the establishment” somehow cheated Bernie?
Given that campaign results are mostly about turnout, I’m not sure this one is so easy to call in advance. I’m also wary of underestimating Trump again.
Trump has been mostly Teflon because the fundamentals he is tapping into in a party contest split four or five ways has given him a leg up on his competition, but his debate performances have simply not been very strong. I think the first debate between Trump and Hillary will probably decide the election. Trump “grows up” and acts prepared and presidential while successfully attacking Hillary, and she stumbling and making big mistakes, will probably win him the election. OTOH, and the more likely scenario, imo, is that Hillary beats him like the proverbial red-headed stepchild and shows that she is the only adult in the room.
What will change though is that if is does get the nomination he’ll suddenly have the much more of the party establishment behind him than he does now, even if it is just self interest that motivates them, and he’ll have access to the kinds of campaign managers he just doesn’t seem to be using right now. If he thinks he can spend no money, with no debate prep, and coast to a nationwide victory, he’s wrong and he’ll lose to whoever the Democratic candidate is.
Well in 2008 she lost to the candidate, who was virtually unknown outside of giving a very impressive speech in 2004, and won his seat against Alan Keyes a guy who makes as much sense as Michelle Bachman. This cycle, against an old socialist, who after 25 years in Congress has virtually no legislative achievements, she has had a tie in Iowa, and blowout loss in NH, and solid win in NV, and a blowout victory in SC.
While it is true she has been vetted, there is a whole new generation of young new voters who haven’t heard about Whitewater real estate scandal, cattle future options trading, tax evasion and the rest of the greatest hits from the 80s. There are reasons she has ~55 disapproval rating, and 59% consider her untrustworthy.
Now mind you, I’m not saying that Trump isn’t in worse shape, but his negative don’t seem to be hurting him as much.
That is a spectacularly inept grasp of Barack Obama’s fame and political chops, circa 2007.
You must be joking. The only thing trying to tell young voters about Hillary’s “scandals” from the 80s and 90s - which were in fact a bunch of convoluted, highly legalistic GOP fishing expeditions that led exactly and precisely nowhere - would accomplish is to put them into a deep, bored slumber.
The Donald’s past is far more interesting. Let’s not forget what a party hound he was in the 80s and 90s. Of course there would be risks to anyone probing in that direction. The Donald’s crack legal team would be one concern; the bigger one would be it would actually make him more popular with his base, a la Rob Ford.
Well the guy was nothing more than community organizer, ffs. /s
OK, that got me. I laughed.
At the beginning of 2007, Obama name recognition was at 50%, this would have put in in behind Cruz and Rubio, tied with Rand Paul, and pretty much right in the middle of the Republican pack in 2015.
So explain why it is inept?
We all tend to have short memories, but before the campaign began, Clinton had very high favorable ratings. I believe Sanders currently enjoys the highest favorability ratings of any candidate, yet even Democrats still don’t know who he is. That would change if he had won the nomination and once Super Pacs starting spending 100’s of millions of negative ads against him. And those things that hurt her with leftist Democrats won’t with a generally more center-right electorate (specifically foreign policy; her dealings with the financial sector might be a different matter.) Of course she’ll get accused of flip flopping and saying anything to get elected, but all politicians do that - even Trump (the one person who doesn’t is Sanders - and against Trump he would probably fare better for that reason.)
Human Ton already addressed the impact those ‘scandals’ from the 80s and 90s will have (i.e. none.) Trump might go after Bill and his infidelities, but his favorability ratings actually went up during the impeachment process. As far as the Sanders ‘coalition’ not voting for Clinton, the only data we have is exit polls and so far that indicates there won’t be a problem (there are lots of anecdotes of Dems saying they’ll never vote for her, but obviously anecdote <> data.)
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting Clinton wins against Trump in a blow out as Trump’s populist message does resonate with a large sector of voters, but my intuition is that most of those voters are Republican voters anyway. IIRC, Romney won the so-called ‘independant’ and white vote going away, yet Obama still won comfortably. Clinton is not Obama and is nowhere near the politician he is, but she’ll have the advantage of the anti-Trump motivation (and even Republican obstructionism on the Supreme Court nomination might help her as well.) Now, were she to run against Kasich, I think she would lose, and even Rubio would have the advantage.
Lastly, she won’t be in the position of underestimating Trump like the Republicans (and nearly everyone else) did - after all, he’ll have won the nomination.
Just to be clear, I think she will lose to Trump also. I sincerely hope she beats him 538-0, since I will voting for the woman. I hope that there are a lot of Republican like myself and Timex who realize that a Hillary victory is better for the both the country and the Republican party than Trump winning. It will be easier for me than most Republicans to vote for her because while I do loathe her, she is intelligent and hard working, and her foreign policy instincts aren’t that much different than mine.
I hope Hillary doesn’t underestimate him cause let us face it he is really easy to underestimate. I stand by wishing you guys had nominated a better politician, with less baggage and more charisma. I guess I’d feel better if the Democrats were more freaked out HOLY FUCK DONALD TRUMP MIGHT BE PRESIDENT OF THE US WE MUST STOP HIM, but I suppose you all are entitled to a bit of schadenfreude.
That’s a great post Strollen. I’m trying to remain rational and calm in the face of that very fear! And since we’re being honest, neither Clinton nor Sanders would be my first choice either, but then right now I don’t know who I wished had run. Gotta go with what you have.
That isn’t what you said before, and I suspect you’re moving the goalposts here because someone called you on it.
In 2006, Barack Obama’s time was so pressed upon that it actually was hurting his marriage, because he was in such high demand by Democrats running for Senate seats and governorships that he was getting jetted all over the country to do fundraising and personal appearances for them due to his popularity (Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson, Battle for America 2008; John Heileman and Mark Halperin, Game Change). When Obama declared his candidacy in 2007, he had two books in the top ten bestseller list, had famously teased his candidacy on a Monday Night Football cold open, and had been on MTP with Tim Russert umpteen times to discuss him wavering on his promise to finish his first term. Upon his declaration of candidacy, there was not a fiscal quarter going forward that he did not out fundraise her, done through small donors. The “Yes We Can” video, posted shortly after the New Hampshire Primary in early 2008, when Obama and Clinton were effectively tied in states won at one apiece remains the single most viewed political clip in United States presidential campaign history.
Should I keep going, or has your silly assertion been slapped down enough for one day?
I think strollen’s assertion was simply that in 2007 basically no one outside of politics even knew who Obama was, and his assertion is correct. At the beginning of that campaign, it was pretty much assumed that Clinton was going to be the nominee.
Yup. All I am saying is if Hillary was a better candidate should would have been the 2008 nominee due to all the structural advantages she had.
Don’t get me wrong Obama is a terrific candidate, he looks good, sounds better, and radiates an aura of calm assurance, that is reminds me of Reagan at his best.
The president has two jobs, head of government and head of state, despite all of my differences with Obama, and his failure as head of government, he has been a top notch head of state. Whether he is singing Ray Charles songs, or comforting families who have suffered losses,President Obama has a lot of class.
(The thought of Trump going to the scene of a national tragedy and giving a speech is just revolting.)
It is tough to overcome that charisma and I don’t think it is any shame that neither Hillary or McCain failed to counter it. I don’t understand Trump’s charisma but that it exists is undeniable. I’ll feel a bit better about Hillary’s chances against Trump if she succeeds in beating Sanders handily.
I like how you put that. Sums it up pretty well, and I think the majority of us agree that Trump would be pretty horrid at both. But you’re right, there is that charisma. I’d like to think that Clinton has learned from her experience with Obama, but time will have to tell. SC was a good start, beating the polling averages considerably. But yeah, she has to show the ability to keep bringing more supporters out of the woodwork/keeping any wavering opposition support home.
That segues into maybe, really, the only reasonably legitimate hypothetical criticism of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. For 8 years I have heard nonstop how Obama is “the most divisive president in memory”, “the most partisan president in memory”, ect by my conservative associates and family, and while I’ve always just brushed that sort of criticism aside, the ascendancy of Trump into the Republican nomination does get me thinking about what the status quo is, because now it seems it’s increasing globalization, increasing liberalization, decreasing religiosity, decreasing economic security and decreasing political engagement. Not to pin the tail on the donkey, but it’s hard to see a President Hillary as being anything but a competent, well meaning, pro-free trade, pro-liberalizing, continuation of the current heading being steered by Obama, maybe with some small deviations w/re to women’s rights or some such. Certainly the sort of people who think Obama is The Worst Guy Ever will see Hillary as The Worst Woman Ever and want their party to simply obstruct her into impotence. In other words despite that she really is the best choice it’s also hard to see how another Clinton presidency, making 12-16 years of continuous Democratic leadership, be anything but a signal by conservatives to further break the government and prevent it from functioning. And i’m not sure about the long term trajectory of American political health being increasingly divided along lines of cultural, regional, or personal identity in a dysfunctional state. Whether they are right or not, crazy or not, there’s going to be a generation’s length of time number of people that thinks the government sees them as the enemy.
Hillary will be as divisive as Obama- but it will be less successful. Women generally have more power as a collective than blacks- so misogyny won’t be as effective as racism.
If the Republicans continue their plan of breaking the government, I kinda want Hillary to bring out her ruthless nature, and break legislative power. Ultimately, a president can do what they want as long as they have 34 Senators to block any impeachment, and the military doesn’t take over the government (very very unlikely in the US). I think there are 34 Democratic senators who have safe seats. If you have the Supreme Court on your side it also becomes easier. If the Republicans want to force a Constitutional crisis so be it.
I do think we’re headed to a Social Wars aspect of American history, and I mean that in the Roman sense. The impact of “news we can agree with” is bearing its poisonous fruit after 20 years. Your average Trump voter would have been a lot more moderate and sane 20 years ago. Also, don’t think the Dems are immune to idiocracy either, as they continue to radicalize, a leftwing Trump Analogue will happen. Don’t be surprised if it’s Kanye West in about 12 years.
I’m not going to say Democracy is doomed, but we’re on a path where it can happen here.