The contempt for the working class is dripping off the smug lips of
Hillary Clinton and her Hand Maidens. In a large room filled with
wealthy Republicans and rich Democrats, they all look alike. And that
is because they are all the same. Notice the absence of any labor
leaders, or any working men/women. But hey! Let's vote for the
lesser of two Evils.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/3/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Legum writes: "Could Hillary Clinton's outreach to some traditional
Republican constituencies cost the Democrats the House and Senate? That is
the implication of a poll released on Thursday."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former U.S. president
Bill Clinton greet supporters during a primary night gathering on April 26
in Philadelphia. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Hillary's GOP Outreach: Could It Do More Harm Than Good for Democrats?
By Gary Legum, Salon
03 September 16
Clinton has been working to convert Republicans, but it could very well
backfire
Could Hillary Clinton's outreach to some traditional Republican
constituencies cost the Democrats the House and Senate? That is the
implication of a poll released on Thursday. Conducted by USA Today and
Suffolk University, the poll suggests that a bare majority of Hillary
voters
- 52 percent - are very or somewhat likely to split the ticket when they
vote, punching the ballot for Clinton for president but also a Republican
for Congress. By contrast, a slight majority of Donald Trump supporters say
they will vote straight Republican up and down the ballot.
The split-ticket numbers could be good news for Republicans hoping to hold
onto their majorities in Congress, particularly in the Senate. (The House
has always been a long shot to flip.) And that's to say nothing of races at
the state and local levels. And these numbers open up the Clinton
campaign's
general-election strategy this summer to Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Has Clinton spent too much of her time reaching out to Republicans? That
question has been asked almost from the minute she wrapped up the
Democratic
nomination early this summer. Reports immediately surfaced that her
campaign
had started talking to GOP donors and operatives, many of whom were
appalled
that their party had nominated Trump and thus possibly receptive to
endorsing and supporting Clinton. There was immediate grumbling from the
Democratic base, even though the candidate did not appear to be moderating
any of her policy positions to attract those Republicans.
On the one hand, the strategy made some sense. A politician who wants to
win
will mine every corner for votes. At the very least, reminding Republicans
that their choices for president are either their hated enemy of a quarter
century, Hillary Clinton, or the racist scrap of aged cigar paper that
their
party had nominated might convince a significant number to stay home in
November. Which would only help her and any down-ballot candidates in tight
races.
On the other hand, why not try to hang Trump like a millstone around the
collective neck of the Republican Party? Why not remind the public at every
turn that this warped, deformed version of the party of Lincoln, the
electoral equivalent of Quasimodo without the redeeming inner beauty, was
fundamentally broken as a political institution and shouldn't be trusted to
run so much as an ice cream truck, let alone the massive apparatus of
government? This strategy would, in theory, marginalize the GOP and make it
toxic for generations.
The risk there would be in activating Republican voters' "brand loyalty" to
their party, pissing them off to the point that those who had been on the
fence about bothering to vote might get angry and turn out in large
numbers.
Clinton's speech in Reno last week, where she excoriated Trump for
appealing
to what the media has politely referred to as the "alt-right" (but that
most
people describe as the "racist fringe of xenophobic white supremacists that
should be drubbed out of society") seemed to carry out both strategies at
the same time. The speech tied Trump to the modern-day GOP and held it
responsible for creating this monster but seemed to suggest that the party
could still save itself by repudiating him.
But now it seems it may be time to pick one strategy and stick with it. For
one thing, as Ed Kilgore notes, the strategy of picking up crossover votes
isn't doing much and might even be hurting the down-ballot races. When a
strategy is actively harming your party, it's time to set it aside.
For another, Trump's immigration speech on Wednesday should have removed
any
doubt about him for even the most clueless, disengaged voter. If that 70
minutes of bombast and flat-out fascism didn't convince the last few
remaining GOP holdouts that he would be far and away the most dangerous
president in the history of the republic, then nothing will. If any
Republicans are still going to support him out of some twisted sense of
party loyalty, then there is nothing to be done.
We'll see after Labor Day, when the real campaign begins, what the Clinton
campaign is thinking. For all I know, the strategy has long been to give
the
GOP a chance to save itself before going at it hard in the fall. But for
the
moment, to the extent that a presidential campaign can influence the
balance
of the Senate and House, the current strategy of reaching out isn't helping
Democrats. It's time to move onto something else.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former U.S. president
Bill Clinton greet supporters during a primary night gathering on April 26
in Philadelphia. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/hillarys-gop-outreach-could-it-do-more-harm-
than-good-for-democrats/http://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/hillarys-gop-outreac
h-could-it-do-more-harm-than-good-for-democrats/
Hillary's GOP Outreach: Could It Do More Harm Than Good for Democrats?
By Gary Legum, Salon
03 September 16
Clinton has been working to convert Republicans, but it could very well
backfire
ould Hillary Clinton's outreach to some traditional Republican
constituencies cost the Democrats the House and Senate? That is the
implication of a poll released on Thursday. Conducted by USA Today and
Suffolk University, the poll suggests that a bare majority of Hillary
voters
- 52 percent - are very or somewhat likely to split the ticket when they
vote, punching the ballot for Clinton for president but also a Republican
for Congress. By contrast, a slight majority of Donald Trump supporters say
they will vote straight Republican up and down the ballot.
The split-ticket numbers could be good news for Republicans hoping to hold
onto their majorities in Congress, particularly in the Senate. (The House
has always been a long shot to flip.) And that's to say nothing of races at
the state and local levels. And these numbers open up the Clinton
campaign's
general-election strategy this summer to Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Has Clinton spent too much of her time reaching out to Republicans? That
question has been asked almost from the minute she wrapped up the
Democratic
nomination early this summer. Reports immediately surfaced that her
campaign
had started talking to GOP donors and operatives, many of whom were
appalled
that their party had nominated Trump and thus possibly receptive to
endorsing and supporting Clinton. There was immediate grumbling from the
Democratic base, even though the candidate did not appear to be moderating
any of her policy positions to attract those Republicans.
On the one hand, the strategy made some sense. A politician who wants to
win
will mine every corner for votes. At the very least, reminding Republicans
that their choices for president are either their hated enemy of a quarter
century, Hillary Clinton, or the racist scrap of aged cigar paper that
their
party had nominated might convince a significant number to stay home in
November. Which would only help her and any down-ballot candidates in tight
races.
On the other hand, why not try to hang Trump like a millstone around the
collective neck of the Republican Party? Why not remind the public at every
turn that this warped, deformed version of the party of Lincoln, the
electoral equivalent of Quasimodo without the redeeming inner beauty, was
fundamentally broken as a political institution and shouldn't be trusted to
run so much as an ice cream truck, let alone the massive apparatus of
government? This strategy would, in theory, marginalize the GOP and make it
toxic for generations.
The risk there would be in activating Republican voters' "brand loyalty" to
their party, pissing them off to the point that those who had been on the
fence about bothering to vote might get angry and turn out in large
numbers.
Clinton's speech in Reno last week, where she excoriated Trump for
appealing
to what the media has politely referred to as the "alt-right" (but that
most
people describe as the "racist fringe of xenophobic white supremacists that
should be drubbed out of society") seemed to carry out both strategies at
the same time. The speech tied Trump to the modern-day GOP and held it
responsible for creating this monster but seemed to suggest that the party
could still save itself by repudiating him.
But now it seems it may be time to pick one strategy and stick with it. For
one thing, as Ed Kilgore notes, the strategy of picking up crossover votes
isn't doing much and might even be hurting the down-ballot races. When a
strategy is actively harming your party, it's time to set it aside.
For another, Trump's immigration speech on Wednesday should have removed
any
doubt about him for even the most clueless, disengaged voter. If that 70
minutes of bombast and flat-out fascism didn't convince the last few
remaining GOP holdouts that he would be far and away the most dangerous
president in the history of the republic, then nothing will. If any
Republicans are still going to support him out of some twisted sense of
party loyalty, then there is nothing to be done.
We'll see after Labor Day, when the real campaign begins, what the Clinton
campaign is thinking. For all I know, the strategy has long been to give
the
GOP a chance to save itself before going at it hard in the fall. But for
the
moment, to the extent that a presidential campaign can influence the
balance
of the Senate and House, the current strategy of reaching out isn't helping
Democrats. It's time to move onto something else.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
