How to Beat Hillary in Three Steps

 

shutterstock_10315753Mitch McConnell gets the credit for being the first to invoke the gender card against Hilary Clinton. That means that the pundits have started talking about what it will mean in the coming election for Hillary Clinton, and The Washington Post‘s Plum Line has a better-than-average summation.

The first item of concern to Republicans is the historic symbolism of the possibility of the first female president. Of course, the logical response to that is to refer to the less-than-stellar results we received by making history with Obama. Hillary’s people will be hoping for that response, because it will lead to the inevitable question: Why do we need a woman president… other than to make history?

Hillary’s campaign is hoping to bring up what they consider women’s issues, which Plum Line’s Paul Waldman correctly lists as abortion, equal pay, paid sick leave, and child care. Normally, these have been disastrous issues for Republicans to navigate, mostly because the standard argument against government intervention in employment issues is a non-starter. Sure, it resonates with a base that prizes free markets or at least some level of governmental deregulation, but it doesn’t fly with people who are more concerned with how they will pay for day-care. Hillary is targeting women voters, and this is why she could win.

But, what happens if Republicans counter with more than just “keep government out of business”? Leaving abortion out of this — since Planned Parenthood is arguably helping to take that issue off the table for Republicans now anyway — the focus in 2016 will probably be on workplace issues. Instead of trying (yet again) to point out that women tend to choose jobs with lower pay scales, a better argument from conservatives would be that we need to encourage women to learn how to negotiate for higher wages.

The call should be for a change in society that removes the negative image that is often attached to women that stand up for themselves, and Republicans already have a messenger for that in the form of Carly Fiorina. Sick leave and child care are both sometimes offered by low-wage employers, but — when they are forced to meet radically higher wage requirements — those perks tend to dry up.

That is something else that Republicans should be able to show women, thanks to the social engineering experiments in minimum wage increases in Seattle and elsewhere. The point is to say more than just “that’s not true” about these issues. Start offering some real proof, and more importantly, real solutions. Hillary will not be doing that, if her current speeches are any indication. She’s sticking with playing on people’s emotions, and talking only in broad strokes, not details.

Finally, the biggest weapon that Hillary will have against Republicans is conservatives’ desire to attack her. As painful as it may be, we need to give up the habit of beating up on Hillary, because she’s fully prepared to play that victim card right after she pulls the gender one. It’s a smart move on her part, too. After Obama spending all these years dividing everyone, anything that is remotely close to negative isn’t going to play well with the masses. Be nice, and stick with the issues. Just say no to the personal attacks, and mean memes on social media. Be the bigger person. No, it’s not realistic to think that everyone will follow those rules, but at least the candidates need to do that, until we’re down to just one. Even then, keep it all business, and leave the personal attacks out of it.

Image Credit: mistydawnphoto / Shutterstock.com

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @IWalton

    We weren’t allowed to beat up on Obama because he was black.  How did that work out?   If this is as good as we can do, just run Firoina, she’s probably the strongest candidate anyway.

    • #1
  2. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @EustaceCScrubb

    Or it could be the opposition will provide the one step that’s needed for her defeat by “letting Hillary be Hillary”.

    • #2
  3. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    I would love an aggressive Rubio / Fiorina ticket. Rubio could use the “first Hispanic President” line combined with his surrogates giving the left the old “You only like Latinos when they are your servants, gardeners and nannies”. Then Carly can beat up Hillary girl on girl.

    • #3
  4. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Liz Harrison: Be nice, and stick with the issues. Just say no to the personal attacks, and mean memes on social media.

    Pointing out that Hillary’s a crook isn’t a “personal attack”, it’s a simple statement of fact, and it should disqualify her from being President.

    Preemptive surrender is never a winning strategy.

    From Instapundit a few items up from this one in my RSS feed this morning:

    …“I’m not going to start questioning people’s honesty or — I just don’t do that, Sean. I mean, where does that get us?” Kasich said. “I want the county to be unified.”

    “Let’s put the country first and the personal attacks second,” he added. “We can all have opinions, but I don’t want to be a voice of negativity in America.  I want to be a voice of positivity in America.”

    And establishment GOP types wonder why Trump and his pugilistic tone is sucking the oxygen out of the big tent.

    Exactly.  Republicans want a fight, not the surrender caucus.

    Kasich’s off my list…

    • #4
  5. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Liz Harrison: Finally, the biggest weapon that Hillary will have against Republicans is conservatives’ desire to attack her. As painful as it may be, we need to give up the habit of beating up on Hillary, because she’s fully prepared to play that victim card right after she pulls the gender one.

    It depends on how she is attacked. But the Republicans at this point should be fighting each other, not shoving the scary Hillary-doll in our faces.

    Here’s another way to beat Hillary: Don’t nominate JEBush.

    • #5
  6. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    John Penfold:We weren’t allowed to beat up on Obama because he was black. How did that work out? If this is as good as we can do, just run Firoina, she’s probably the strongest candidate anyway.

    Oh, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Yes, Hillary should be attacked, on her (de)merits, lack of ability that has been proven, her ideas, her policies, and all of those things. I’m saying cool off the personal attacks. Honestly, this is Ricochet. People here tend to know how to articulate ideas, without devolving into personal attacks. That is something that I doubt you need to be told about. My social media feeds are full of absolutely horrible insults, with zero substance, though.

    • #6
  7. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Franco:

    It depends on how she is attacked. But the Republicans at this point should be fighting each other, not shoving the scary Hillary-doll in our faces.

    Here’s another way to beat Hillary: Don’t nominate JEBush.

    Agreed on the “no more Bush” point. What should scare everyone more right now is Trump. While he’s enjoying some popular support right now, even some polls now are saying that “liking” him doesn’t mean that anyone intends to actually vote for him. He needs to burn himself out, and hopefully he will. If he doesn’t, either he pulls off the miraculous by getting the nomination, or he takes his ball to go play independent. Either way, it’s bad for the GOP, because either you’ll have low turnout, or yet another rift that will split voters away from the main ticket.

    • #7
  8. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Liz Harrison: I’m saying cool off the personal attacks.

    So what’s a personal attack?  Is calling her a liar out of bounds, as per Kasich?

    • #8
  9. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Tuck:

    Liz Harrison: I’m saying cool off the personal attacks.

    So what’s a personal attack? Is calling her a liar out of bounds, as per Kasich?

    No, that isn’t personal. That’s calling her out for being untruthful, which is a character issue at least. Personal attacks are the wretched memes with her in Joker-style make-up, calling her names like a child in the schoolyard, and making snide remarks about blue dresses and cigars.

    • #9
  10. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Liz Harrison:

    No, that isn’t personal. That’s calling her out for being untruthful, which is a character issue at least. Personal attacks are the wretched memes with her in Joker-style make-up, calling her names like a child in the schoolyard, and making snide remarks about blue dresses and cigars.

    That’s a fair way to draw the line.  Better than Kasich’s, anyway.

    In my view you play by the rules your opponent’s using.  If they’re playing Marquis of Queensbury, then you do.  If they’re playing dirty streetfight, then so do you.

    Otherwise you put yourself at a needless disadvantage.  Or, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, quoting Alinsky, “punch back twice as hard”.  The fact that the Dems play by one set of rules and the Republicans another explains much of Republican failure, IMHO.

    As the Democrats do all that you list above…

    • #10
  11. user_7742 Member
    user_7742
    @BrianWatt

    So, let me see if I understand Hillary’s position on childcare: The federal government should offer financial assistance to mothers who want their young children to be cared for by a caregiver or in pre-school with the understanding that those children won’t likely be parted out for medical research. Or does “childcare” refer to the proper and efficient selection and extraction, as well as, the proper packing and shipping of fetuses and child parts to interested parties to keep Planned Parenthood solvent? I’m so confused.

    • #11
  12. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Tuck:

    That’s a fair way to draw the line. Better than Kasich’s, anyway.

    In my view you play by the rules your opponent’s using. If they’re playing Marquis of Queensbury, then you do. If they’re playing dirty streetfight, then so do you.

    Otherwise you put yourself at a needless disadvantage. Or, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, quoting Alinsky, “punch back twice as hard”. The fact that the Dems play by one set of rules and the Republicans another explains much of Republican failure, IMHO.

    As the Democrats do all that you list above…

    Punching back twice as hard to me used to mean pointing out when the opposition dipped in the mud against the candidate I was working for, telling the candidate to talk about that, say “I could dip to that level, and bring up ‘x’ about my opponent, but…”, then get into something substantial. So, it was usually a two-fer – get a little dirty dig in, but move on quickly to something the voters really gave a damn about in the first place. Usually worked out for the ones I managed, at least it played well in the polls.

    • #12
  13. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Liz Harrison:

    Punching back twice as hard to me used to mean pointing out when the opposition dipped in the mud against the candidate I was working for, telling the candidate to talk about that, say “I could dip to that level, and bring up ‘x’ about my opponent, but…”, then get into something substantial. So, it was usually a two-fer – get a little dirty dig in, but move on quickly to something the voters really gave a damn about in the first place. Usually worked out for the ones I managed, at least it played well in the polls.

    But how a candidate comports himself is different from how Republicans ought to.

    I can’t think of many candidates who would use, as you say above:

    “…the wretched memes with her in Joker-style make-up, calling her names like a child in the schoolyard, and making snide remarks about blue dresses and cigars.”

    What’s important is what’s effective.  Making yourself look juvenile probably isn’t a great course, although it’s worked pretty well for our current CoC.

    • #13
  14. Jim Kearney Contributor
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    While Republicans should prepare to oppose Hillary in 2016, they should not lose sight of the bigger picture: the importance and political weight of our first successful female nominee on a national political ticket. The U.K., Germany, India, and even Pakistan have gotten there first. If not Hillary, then maybe it will be Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Carly Fiorina. It will happen soon, and likely very soon.

    This will not be primarily about abortion, equal pay, sick leave, or child care, although all of those issues will be raised and Republicans should be loathe to demean the female majority position on any of them.

    This will be more about voter identification and empathy. Since 1960, women have risen from 35% to 53% of the total workforce. (There’s still a pay gap, but that’s actually narrowed from 62% of men’s pay in 1979 to 82% by 2013.) 44% of women aged 18-25 are in college, while men only manage 38%. Since college grads earn almost double what non-grads make, women are on course to surpass men as earners.

    Republicans need to be seen as supportive of women’s rise in workplace influence and political power in our society. The GOP must at all costs avoid being credibly characterized as in opposition to women’s progress. Statements made by Republicans in support of women in the workplace will resonate, but they must also show and not just tell. No more binders full; candidates front and center please.

    • #14
  15. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Liz Harrison:

    Franco:

    ………

    Here’s another way to beat Hillary: Don’t nominate JEBush.

    Agreed on the “no more Bush” point. What should scare everyone more right now is Trump. While he’s enjoying some popular support right now, even some polls now are saying that “liking” him doesn’t mean that anyone intends to actually vote for him. He needs to burn himself out, and hopefully he will. If he doesn’t, either he pulls off the miraculous by getting the nomination, or he takes his ball to go play independent. Either way, it’s bad for the GOP, because either you’ll have low turnout, or yet another rift that will split voters away from the main ticket.

    I think it’s great for the GOP. They need to grow some cajones. They are so afraid of what people will say.

    I have already predicted there would be a significant third party challenge if the GOP nominates Bush and the Dems give us Hillary. I  still can’t reconcile what the Republicans have been doing (and not doing) in Congress and that so many support JEB! It’s mind-boggling. Trump isn’t the answer, but he is the question. When are our good candidates going to start talking tough and calling out Democrats – and Republicans – on their small-ball games? Cruz and Rand Paul are the only ones who actually seem to understand the zeitgeist. The others are insiders and insulated playing safe out of fear.

    • #15
  16. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Jim Kearney:While Republicans should prepare to oppose Hillary in 2016, they should not lose sight of the bigger picture: the importance and political weight of our first successful female nominee on a national political ticket. The U.K., Germany, India, and even Pakistan have gotten there first. If not Hillary, then maybe it will be Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, or Carly Fiorina. It will happen soon, and likely very soon.

    This will not be primarily about abortion, equal pay, sick leave, or child care, although all of those issues will be raised and Republicans should be loathe of demean the female majority position on any of them.

    This will be more about voter identification and empathy. Since 1960, women have risen from 35% to 53% of the total workforce. (There’s still a pay gap, but that’s actually narrowed from 62% of men’s pay in 1979 to 82% by 2013.) 44% of women aged 18-25 are in college, while men only manage 38%. Since college grads earn almost double what non-grads make, women are on course to surpass men as earners.

    Republicans need to be seen as supportive of the women’s rise in workplace influence and political power in our society. The GOP must at all costs avoid being credibly characterized as in opposition to women’s progress. Statements made by Republicans in support of women in the workplace will resonate, but they must also show and not just tell. No more binders full; candidates front and center please.

    Bonus would be if Republicans could finally call the left’s fascination with returning women to “fragile-in-need-of-protection” status, like in the 19th century and before, for what it is. Yes, women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Ashe Schow are putting that attitude in the limelight, but that’s not enough. Solutions matter, not just pointing out the problems.

    • #16
  17. user_989419 Inactive
    user_989419
    @ProbableCause

    Liz Harrison:Instead of trying (yet again) to point out that women tend to choose jobs with lower pay scales, a better argument from conservatives would be that we need to encourage women to learn how to negotiate for higher wages.

    That would likely come across as condescending.

    • #17
  18. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Probable Cause:

    Liz Harrison:Instead of trying (yet again) to point out that women tend to choose jobs with lower pay scales, a better argument from conservatives would be that we need to encourage women to learn how to negotiate for higher wages.

    That would likely come across as condescending.

    From a male candidate, yes. From Fiorina, in the context of promoting organizations that were created to help women succeed in their careers? No. It’s all about the context, and the person delivering the message.

    • #18
  19. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    I’m one of those weird quasi-reformites, so of course I agree -but not exactly.  We should go after policies the Democrats have imposed that make it harder for women to make the choices they want to make.  The policies that make part time work harder to get, the policies that make telecommuting harder to do, the policies that lock women into jobs because they need the second income or the benefits.

    Which is to say, actually sell our policies on education, regulation, and health care as the benefits to all people -but especially women -that they are.  When Hillary comes back with “we’ll force your employer to offer childcare” we respond “yes, you could vote for the person who is going to antagonize your boss and force you to take some of your compensation in the form of childcare.  Or, you could vote for the person who is going to make it easier and cheaper for you to find the childcare you want, whether that’s professional, at the office, or you or your husband staying home part time, we won’t care care, and you can have a larger paycheck.  Or, you know, let Hillary cut your pay and let your boss pocket the difference unless you do exactly what she demands.  Your choice.”

    • #19
  20. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Sabrdance:I’m one of those weird quasi-reformites, so of course I agree -but not exactly. We should go after policies the Democrats have imposed that make it harder for women to make the choices they want to make. The policies that make part time work harder to get, the policies that make telecommuting harder to do, the policies that lock women into jobs because they need the second income or the benefits.

    Which is to say, actually sell our policies on education, regulation, and health care as the benefits to all people -but especially women -that they are. When Hillary comes back with “we’ll force your employer to offer childcare” we respond “yes, you could vote for the person who is going to antagonize your boss and force you to take some of your compensation in the form of childcare. Or, you could vote for the person who is going to make it easier and cheaper for you to find the childcare you want, whether that’s professional, at the office, or you or your husband staying home part time, we won’t care care, and you can have a larger paycheck. Or, you know, let Hillary cut your pay and let your boss pocket the difference unless you do exactly what she demands. Your choice.”

    THIS!! THIS!! A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS!!! And Hillary has already cast her die on this one with her promises to regulate free market innovations like Uber. GenOpp, Learn to Fly, and so many other “alternative” job market and entrepreneurship opportunities are out there for millennials (and older workers), and just about every single Democrat “jobs” policy hurts them. And that’s not getting into the total flops Obama had with inventors’ cooperatives that were looking to him for help with taking their inventions from the lab to the marketplace. Regulations are killing them, and most of them come from Democrats.

    • #20
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Jim Kearney: Republicans need to be seen as supportive of women’s rise in workplace influence and political power in our society.

    Shouldn’t be hard.

    “…[Susan B.] Anthony, who at that time had already become a prominent figure in the women’s suffrage movement, had written to fellow suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted “Republican ticket –straight.” That included Ulysses S. Grant and other candidates who promised to listen to women’s demands.

    • #21
  22. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Tuck:

    But how a candidate comports himself is different from how Republicans ought to.

    I can’t think of many candidates who would use, as you say above:

    “…the wretched memes with her in Joker-style make-up, calling her names like a child in the schoolyard, and making snide remarks about blue dresses and cigars.”

    What’s important is what’s effective. Making yourself look juvenile probably isn’t a great course, although it’s worked pretty well for our current CoC.

    Hillary has a history.  It includes euphemisms such as “bimbo eruption” and the claim that Monica Lewinsky was the “stalker.”  She failed to bring her husband into line and keep him there but wants to be the chief executive of this country.  She blamed the women he was involved with, and he was credibly cited as a rapist.

    She carpet bagged as a senator from New York.  She hid records from the law firm she was involved with.  Her character is important in her effort to become the next president.  I wouldn’t hesitate to list her failures in all areas.

    • #22
  23. user_551244 Inactive
    user_551244
    @BillNelson

    Hillary will be the next president. It is baked in. Democrats control 18 states and DC with 242 electoral votes, no matter who the candidate is. Hillary can stay at home and configure her servers until the election is over.

    I do not see how any republican can turn those votes.

    • #23
  24. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    donald todd:

    Tuck:

    But how a candidate comports himself is different from how Republicans ought to.

    I can’t think of many candidates who would use, as you say above:

    “…the wretched memes with her in Joker-style make-up, calling her names like a child in the schoolyard, and making snide remarks about blue dresses and cigars.”

    What’s important is what’s effective. Making yourself look juvenile probably isn’t a great course, although it’s worked pretty well for our current CoC.

    Hillary has a history. It includes euphemisms such as “bimbo eruption” and the claim that Monica Lewinsky was the “stalker.” She failed to bring her husband into line and keep him there but wants to be the chief executive of this country. She blamed the women he was involved with, and he was credibly cited as a rapist.

    She carpet bagged as a senator from New York. She hid records from the law firm she was involved with. Her character is important in her effort to become the next president. I wouldn’t hesitate to list her failures in all areas.

    You’re still in the realm of substantial issues, as opposed to straight-up childish name-calling.

    • #24
  25. kmtanner Inactive
    kmtanner
    @kmtanner

    There is strong Trumpbase within republicans, so is there need for these? She is going to win

    • #25
  26. Liz Harrison Contributor
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    kmtanner:There is strong Trumpbase within republicans, so is there need for these? She is going to win

    Always love the pessimists. Yes, it is necessary, because Trump is a loose cannon. He doesn’t know how to filter himself, or when to stop pushing his luck. The people supporting him are a fickle bunch, and it’s fairly easy to lose their favor.

    • #26
  27. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    I think the best answer to the gender card is basically “what has Hillary Clinton done to earn the honor of being our first female president?”

    Unrelated side-note: if Scott Walker is the nominee, I predict he’ll make sure that everyone in America knows who Lieutenant Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch is.

    • #27
  28. Jim Kearney Contributor
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Bill Nelson: Hillary will be the next president. It is baked in. Democrats control 18 states and DC with 242 electoral votes

    Here’s what could happen. Clinton and the Democrats take the Pacific coast including Hawaii but not Alaska, plus Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, flipping Missouri; and straight down the Northeast coast through and including a close race in Virginia.

    The Rubio-Kasich takes the rest, flipping Florida, Ohio, and Iowa.

    Final electoral tally: 269-269. The House of Representatives remains Republican.

    Or do your own at http://www.270towin.com/

    • #28
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.