Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Well, That Was a Disaster
For all the conventional reasons, I’ve been bullish about Republican chances in 2016: Democratic policies are unpopular; President Obama’s not running; It’s been eight years; We’ve got a strong bench; and everyone’s tired of Hillary Clinton. Stipulating that it’s generally not a good idea to put much stock into a single poll — let alone one this early into the cycle — this piece from the WSJ has me re-evaluating:
The number of people who are unsatisfied with [Clinton’s] response to questions on the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound dropped to 38% in the poll, from 44% in a poll taken before she testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. The new poll found Republicans’ opinion remained largely unchanged, but among Democrats and swing voters, there was a significant rise in satisfaction with Mrs. Clinton’s response.
…In the Journal/NBC poll taken before the House hearing, 27% said they were satisfied with Mrs. Clinton’s response to questions about the attack, and 44% said they were not satisfied, with Republicans far more likely than Democrats to be unsatisfied.
The new poll conducted after the House hearing found the share of Democratic primary voters who were satisfied with Mrs. Clinton’s response rose to 72%, from 58%. The impact was not just among diehard partisans: Among people identified as swing voters, satisfaction jumped to 23% from 6%, while dissatisfaction dropped from 84% to 40%.
Bear in mind, this is a hearing that featured the revelation that — on the night of the attack — Clinton told her daughter a different story than the one she would tell the American people the following day, confirming the suspicion that the administration tried to hide news of an Islamist attack by rolling what happened in Benghazi into what had happened in Egypt earlier that day. This happened, of course, over her private server and resulted in the jailing of the video maker. And people think she came off well.
The ultimate blame for this, I think, falls on Republican House members: Kevin McCarthy poisoned the well in his comments last month and the committee members buried the lede under hours of tedium and grandstanding. And Clinton — for all she lacks her husband’s natural skill — is a strong player.
We need to get better at this. There’s time, but this is painful.
Published in Foreign Policy, Politics
That’s why we should never give up.
I think people think more when walking into a voting booth than when they answer polls. The poll was probably just as much about the Republicans (wearing Kevin McCarthy’s face) as it was about Hillary.
The people who responded didn’t wath the hearings- only political junkies did. The response is based on reading news reports, which were all written during the first hour (or before they started).
This is not the election issue. People still know that Hillary is a liar, and the TV spots from the hearing will reinforce that. People’s support or lack thereof for Hillary is not predicated on Benghazi.
That said, until Republicans hire professional counsel to ask the questions, instead of each Member wanting to preen on camera, hearings will continue to be useless.
Like! Like! Like! And more likes!
@Roadrunner: Not saying “all’s well that ends well” — as with any crime or abuse, it isn’t “well” for those who were targeted.
But the intimidation didn’t work: The governor it was supposed to take down was quite comfortably re-elected; the people who were targeted are speaking; the process isn’t over and the DA may not in fact escape personal consequences; and it can’t happen again, not that way.
From the Supreme Court to the Legislature to the conservative media and activists, I’d take Wisconsin’s conservative leadership handling of this over most of the people in Congress who are “investigating” the IRS.
More to the point, the idea that Drew or anyone else lacks any sort of credibility to speak on any national political issue whatsoever because the Democrats in their state are particularly outrageous and dangerous is just absurd.
Exactly, Leigh. The John Doe abuses will not happen again. Scott Walker put strict limitations on their uses a couple weeks ago. (The left-wing press raged that he was doing it to protect his pals. But their hatred of Scott Walker is a pure hatred.)
One thing I have admired in Scott Walker (and the state legislature) over the last four years is that they keep their heads down and do what needs to be done. The Democrats grandstand and pull stunts and run to Illinois and whine, and the legislature soldiers on, quietly and effectively working to take down the Democrat machine.
It’s long battle. Democrats have a lot of friends in the judiciary. But little by little, conservatives are winning in this state. It’s one reason that it hasn’t bothered me much that Scott Walker dropped out of the Presidential race. The job is not finished here.
The Republican Party is a coalition. This is true of every political party to some extent, but I think it is, in part, particularly true of Republicans right now.
And I think realizing that outright is part of the key. Those people who disagree with you aren’t traitors to principle — they don’t necessarily share that same principle. But you’re part of the same coalition. You need them. The moderates need the Tea Party. The Tea Party needs the moderates. At least to get past election day, to repeal Obamacare, and to fight amongst ourselves in a country that is a little more free. If we’re going to hold out to make the Republican Party stand for exactly what we think it ought to, we’ll split hopelessly and Clinton picks up the pieces. Neither Trump nor Bush can hold this coalition together. I’m not at all sure Cruz can. Or Kasich, for what that’s worth.
But can a successful candidate put together a winning message that unites on some level most of the elements of the party? I think so. There are a surprising number of issues on which Republicans broadly agree. I think the message is there.
Great idea. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
The only message I am aware of that has an appeal to each part of the coalition you describe is ‘not democrat’ or ‘not Hillary’. I think it loses.
I think you’re both right. The question for the committee to tug out of her was not what happened, but why did she lie about it.
I talked to my mother about this. She is a Democrat that did not vote for Obama the second time around. She is the definition of LIV and can be convinced to vote Republican if presented with the truth. She is one of my measures of what the LIVs are doing.
Her take on the Benghazi hearings? They were a GOP hit job on HRC and that HRC came out of them vindicated. It does not matter what happened in the hearings. The message presented and received is that the HRC made the GOP look foolish and the GOP set a trap and shot their own foot off. Unless the GOP can get the true narrative out past the MSM and to the public they are going to lose the election and maybe the ones going forward.
How about “repeal Obamacare and empower patients instead?” For a start.
That isn’t all that was heard or said in Wisconsin, and it won there. That isn’t all that we’re hearing from Marco Rubio, who could probably hold the coalition together long enough if anyone could.
I don’t feel like I’m making my point effectively or clearly, to be honest… antibiotics are messing with me… so I’ll step out and let the rest of you have at it.
Sorry, to hear about the anti-biotic. I hope you are on the mend.
I love the repeal Obamacare message. Is that a core of Rubio’s platform?
Yes, the hearing was yet another disappointment from our inept Congressmen, but the investigation may still be valuable re the election. HRC has shown herself to be irresponsible and shamelessly cavalier about our national security. I want commercials pointing this out clearly for all to see. This:
“I mean get nasty and completely unfair. Let the candidates tut tut and condemn all this as magnanimously and be as outraged as they need to be, it might be a plus for them to overdo the sympathy. Bottom line, She needs to be hit hard and relentlessly before we have a candidate to defend. Lest there be worry that She will use this to play the victim, fear not, it is going to happen regardless of attacks. She needs an overdose of ridicule, be made a laughingstock.”
Which PAC will do this and where do I send some $?
He can talk all day long of course. In a state where Republicans have a lot of power, I think the response was pathetic. When police and judges abuse their power, the intimidation remains. If the judge or police authorities found themselves in jail or at best fired as a result of this corrupt practice then maybe the intimidation would be flowing the other way against this banana republic practice. Instead they had their fun and nobody is hurt except their political enemies who were terrorized one evening. That is an odd way of fighting against corruption. Anyone can take swings at Hillary all day long and I won’t say a word. But when you take a cheap shot at political allies I may take a shot back.
Exactly. The point is to put Dems on the spot about their candidate being a liar. The choir will support her no matter what, but if we can peel off a sliver of Dems and a lot of independents, we’re golden. Any black cloud over Hillary might potentially keep the Dem enthusiasm damped enough to stay home. I say pound this point with clear and clever ads. Make it a centerpiece.
About half of Americans really don’t care about the ‘damn emails’, or that the US was unprepared for what happened in Benghazi, that Hillary lied about it, or that the IRS targeted conservative groups, etc. They really, truly do not care. And that is why there is an ideological civil war going on.
The IRS is an interesting issue because asset forfeiture seems to get bipartisan disdain.
If there is a universally loathed bureaucracy I think the IRS qualifies.
Republicans here are constantly hamstringed by a Democrat-led judiciary. For example, Republicans passed a Voter ID law years go. It has yet to be implemented because judges keep blocking it. Madison is a hell-hole of left-wingery.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they are turning the right direction for the moment.
I believe Trump’s support is driven by rejection of the GOP. I completely understand rejecting the GOP, but I don’t understand why one would turn to an erstwhile Democrat to carry the conservative banner to Washington. Explain why I am wrong to paint Trump as a non-conservative.
But given the fact that the Left goes on and on and on about the importance of truth (look at all their ‘fact’ checking entities), don’t you think the observing public might notice they don’t have a credible response to the charge that Hillary lied? If this were emphasized as her finally not being able to wiggle free, the other charges through the years might gain some credibility.
If we don’t take advantage of this, I think it will be seen as a missed opportunity. Hillary in office will certainly expose herself as lacking integrity and we’ll just be kicking ourselves saying why didn’t we show some gumption when we had the evidence instead of just throwing up our hands and fighting on their chosen battlefield.
There is only so much Republicans can do in the face of a morally depraved populace…and only so far you should be willing to let them drag us down.
No, that is rather unlikely.
By any reasonable metric our current President is a pathological liar, with many of his fabrications so over the top that even his most ardent supporters can come up with no credible denials. Yet despite that he appears to have suffered little consequence amongst his supporters.
If this sort of tactic were capable of having any sort of success it would not be due to Mrs. Clinton dishonesty but to her complete lack of charisma, particularly as compared to her husband and Obama. Simply emphasizing her lack of trustworthiness isn’t enough, critics will need to make voters actively dislike her as a person.
She won’t have the draw on the black vote that Barry had. She won’t have the draw on the Latino vote that Barry had. She won’t have the draw on the young vote that Barry had. She won’t have the draw on the socialists that Bernie has.
Everyone who thinks being lied to is wonderful will certainly vote for her, as she has no connection to the truth and lies as smoothly as Barry.
She will be saddled with Barrycare and the costs that are now being recognized, with businesses being unwilling to pick up the tab for employees any further than they have to, insurance companies and AARP aside. So continued slow job growth, continued stagnant wages, a noticeable decrease in America’s standing in the world.
I don’t believe that makes Hillary! electable but I could be wrong.
I never said it was. I said it annoyed me to hear you dismiss political allies (his supporters) as nothing but Hillary like. The big concern that explains Jeb’s! and Marco’s problem is immigration. The Donald moved into the vacuum that was created by our donor class. The local successes of Rick Perry and Scott Walker would have been assets if it weren’t for the slavish obedience required by people like the disgusting Paul Singer. Marco Rubio would have run away with the nomination if it wasn’t for spending months as Chuck Schumer’s punk. This has been a problem since the Bush administration when he first pushed amnesty and lost all support and had to watch it be pulled back. Repackage and try again was what the Party advocated. Maybe the stupid yokels will fall for it the next time. Our donor money and the votes required to get elected are 180 degrees out. This leads to all kinds of dishonesty on the parts of Republican politicians. That won’t work anymore. We as Republicans are so all in on immigration that Hillary is likely to be the next President. It is too bad nobody dealt with this problem in an honest fashion when we could have. I will vote for the Republican nominee anyway. I have always seen it as a lesser of evils affair. That might be a harder task for you.
Fair points.
I disagree with your Obamacare analysis. It was never intended as a durable solution or program. It was a rest stop on the way to single payer or Medicare for all. It’s cost overruns, implosion, etc. are on schedule, perhaps a little early.
Hillary is the perfect candidate to continue banging the drum that the problem isn’t progressive policy. The problem is that they are implemented as half measures.
Eh, no shock here. I became convinced two years ago that we’ve passed the demographic point of no return. Ann Coulter pointed out that if we had the demographics of 1980, Romney would have won in a landslide. Ted Kennedy put a stake through this nation’s heart in 1965. There are consequences to bringing in 3rd world masses with no appreciation for(and often, outright hostility to) western civilization. Couple that with the complete Bernie Sanderization of the Millenials, and things are probably pointing to doom. The flyover states will stay red only until Aztlan floods them too. By my reckoning, we have two, maybe three POTUS elections that are even slightly winnable, then… it’s basically lights out for what the founding fathers built. One hopes that a drastic change can be made, that a drastic turnaround in the attitudes of the Millenials will occur. But don’t bet on it.
That’s not what the polls are showing.
According to Real Clear Politics, in hypothetical match ups, Clinton would lose to Bush, Carson, and Fiorina, and is in a statistical tie with Trump and Rubio. Granted, the polling data is all about a month old. We should get some new numbers soon.
As yet another example of how out of touch I am with my fellow countrymen, Bush comes out ahead of HRC?
Well, that don’t make no sense.
I’m going to be fine. But the room spins around from time to time, and that includes the computer screen.
Which is why I’m not researching how prominently O’care is on Rubio’s website or anything like that. But he’s certainly talking about it, when given the chance. For some mysterious (or not) reason the media aren’t really asking about that at these debates.
Besides Rubio, one could note that Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, even Ed Gillespie (whose near-defeat in that unique context was a moral victory, and who may well be the next governor) managed to find a conservative message that held the party together.
I think what you are saying is that Republicans need to be a “proposition party” and not merely an “opposition party?”
I think you are referencing this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_Clinton_vs._Republicans.html
Yes, exactly and the proposition shouldn’t be “we will grow the government slower, manage the welfare state better, and erode your individual liberty less than the other guys”.