Posted on 05/07/2015 1:16:23 PM PDT by Reno89519
Let's be honest with ourselves for a second: This is Hillary Clinton's election to lose.
On Nov. 8, 2016, Clinton will start — start — with a minimum 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. If you give her Colorado and Virginia — which many political strategists would, given the Hispanic population in one and the rising influence of the northern-centered population in the other — she'll start with 269. That means Clinton doesn't need Ohio or Florida. She just needs one small state like Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And because she's got a boatload of money and no viable primary challenger, she'll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.
In order to shift the map, the Republican nominee would have to find a way to win Colorado and/or Virginia. That means winning over Hispanics, which will be a difficult task for a nominee who has spent a months-long primary trying to win over the conservative grass roots. It also means winning over enough members of Virginia's white working class to counter the more populated liberal-urban centers in the north. Not impossible, of course, but hard.
Unless ... unless one of two things happens: 1. The Republicans build an Obama 2008-level narrative around their nominee, significantly broadening their candidate's appeal to independents and Democrats. 2. Some legitimate controversy, historic stumble, unconscionable error or jaw-dropping gaffe completely reorients the way voters view Hillary Clinton.
As of now, the first option seems unlikely. Republicans have not produced a candidate who looks poised to pull off a "hope and change"-style campaign, despite Marco Rubio's attempt to brand himself as the candidate for a "new American century." The second option would require a controversy or error so major — and legitimate — that it didn't go away. Such a controversy would have to be far bigger than a secret email account or questionable Clinton Foundation donations. The inconsequence of those stories can be seen in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which found that "Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics."
The conventional wisdom among Clinton's supporters is that Clinton is invincible, because she has already weathered all the storms of media scrutiny. She has been in the public eye for 25 years and endured countless controversies, from Whitewater to Lewinsky to Benghazi. The book has been thrown at her, and the book lost.
This argument overlooks two important factors: First, the national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate). Even before she announced her presidential bid, The New York Times alone had published more than 40 articles related to her private email account, spurring other stories across the national print, digital and television media. Since announcing her bid, the national media have spent the bulk of their time investigating potential lines of influence between Clinton Foundation donations/speaking fees and Clinton's actions as secretary of state. The Times, The Washington Post and others even struck deals for early access to anti-Clinton research.
Second, the media environment is radically different from the 1990s or even the 2000s. The power and volume of social media means that controversies can be both disseminated and elevated to unprecedented levels. In today's media environment, nothing with even a whiff of gunpowder comes across the transom without blowing up, because blowing stuff up is what the media do. Or, as Daniel Henninger notes in today's Wall Street Journal, the "electronic elements have reached critical mass ... [and] the new political media that will drive the 2016 presidential contest are like the surface of the oceans — huge, always moving, unpredictable and potentially destructive."
The rest, as they say, is noise. The media can cover every minor process development and chase Hillary to every Chipotle, but without an unforeseen controversy of truly epic proportions and/or a transformational Republican candidate, Hillary Clinton will waltz to the nomination and enter Election Day with a significant advantage over her challenger.
Furthermore, Millenials are finding her "old" and Bill is no longer cute or sexy but speaks like an old man on the verge off passing out. Not cool.
I not ready to give up yet, but Republican's risk this outcome if they push Bush III or his amnesty loving shadow, Rubio on party. Bush III has no charism, his positions seem to mirror Clinton and they would compete to outdo each other. Rubio is our John Edwards, wouldn't trust him to for nothing. Hillary would eat them both up without building up a sweat.
Cruz would make this an issues campaign, which is where Clinton might be weak. Walker is going to stir up the unions and teachers, etc., which likely helps Clinton more than hurts her. I do not see the rest holding water to Clinton. Worst nightmare would be Christie vs. Clinton. He'd likely get needled into bullying her and turn everyone off.
I like the idea of a Cruz vs. Clinton matchup; both would stick to ideas and not personalities, not name calling, etc. That, to me is the real risk the party has running against Hillary, some idiot saying something like Hitlery or dragging up the past ad nauseum. The past is already played and no one is listening.
What do you think? How do you see the match-ups?
What I think is that a ticket with Cruz and Martinez would be hard for Hillary, or any of the other possibles to beat. On the other hand, Hillary might not get past the starting gate. She is a horrible public speaker. She can’t possibly debate with Cruz or Walker, or Governor Martinez for that matter, and she packs more baggage by the day. If the MSM doesn’t run interference for her, Hillary will lose, maybe. What I said in my first post could very likely come true. Politically and culturally, this country has decided to self-destruct, and there may not enough reasonable people to tip the balance.
“The Presidency does not matter. Special interest groups control Washington.”
Well, we actually don’t matter. I think the term “Special Interest Group” gets bandied about too much. Really, I prefer the term “neo-aristocracy.” It is like the jolly old British Empire where you were born to your status and that was that. Except here, if you are lucky enough, you can also get elected to your status. The new aristocracy doesn’t suffer the Constitution (designed, at its very core, to prevent their rise in the first place) or little people like you and I who actually have the audacity to think our votes count for something or that we are allowed to object to the little “pass the taxpayer money to my personal bank account” game that goes on in DC.
Thus, we have a system in DC where two Parties really are not that bothered by which one is in charge, elections are more of a sporting even to them, really. Sure, ole Bitch, I mean Mitch, is sad when his party doesn’t control the Senate but it is more of a “just wait till next year” kind of sad that he experienced long ago when he lost at little league. So long as Bitch err, Mitch McConnell and Boner and Reid and Pelosi have their status as landed gentry, the rest of us can go and pound sand.
There is truth here buried in the propaganda.
This is why Jeb, Huckster, Carson, Linda, Carly, Santorum and the rest of the 3rd tier candidates are pointless votes.
Each of these candidates either can’t even bring their home state to party or its already a Red State.
The Keystone to winning 2016 is the Midwest plus NV and NH.
Without IA, CO, WI and OH, things are not going to go well.
No way on Martinez. Used to live in NM and didn’t like here then. Plus, since Cruz is Hispanic, she offers nothing.
Realistically 247 electoral votes is insurmountable, and that doesn’t include CO and NH.
Pretty soon, we will be wishing for another Governor Dewey candidacy.
Your message reminds me of a news story I heard some time ago that said that when the Senators talk among each other that they refer to the Senate as the House of Lords.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.