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 is a fascinating poll. She beats a generic republican, loses to Jeb and Carson and leads the others. If I am reading that correctly it makes as much sense as a rock fight.
What’s the point of fighting then? Are you saying circle the wagons and set up your family to survive a Euromerica? (Actually, I am sort of trying to do this, but it’s so depressing.)
That’s a judgment of right and wrong, not necessarily an analysis of what wins or doesn’t. Rightly or wrongly, I am not at all sure that your proposition is the defining one for most primary voters. Maybe that is what we should be fighting about, but I am not sure it is what we are fighting about. What proposition do you believe has worked for Walker, Gardner, Ernst, Rubio, and others we could name? Because something worked.
I am actually deeply concerned about how little I hear about the growth of government or the erosion of liberty from Donald Trump. Not to mention entitlements, on which he seems to have decided that the status quo is fine. He represents anger at Republican ineffectiveness, yes, but not actual conservatism as the answer.
It makes no sense at all. Unless, of course, you buy into the “Establishment” narrative that there are actually centrist voters out there, that those voters swing elections, and that those voters want to vote for someone is not a rock throwing extremist on either side. Then it makes all kinds of sense.
You will not beat the Clintons with scandal. Repeat that twice an hour while awake. Continue until you realize how they can be beaten.
(Hint, better candidate and better messaging)
Agree with your analysis. I was speaking about the general election.
It’s no longer inconceivable to hear the word “antidisestablishmentarianism” used in everyday conversation.
That was not an argument against fighting, nor a personal opinion that the struggle is futile. The point I was attempting to make was that merely pointing out the dishonesty of any particular Democrat is unlikely to move the needle.
Everyone realizes that HRC is dishonest:
and they do not care enough to significantly alter the results:
Head to head match ups are similar, only Carson evidences a serious lead over Clinton. Given his high likability ratings it is not surprising that there it seems to make a difference but otherwise a Democrat merely being a liar is not in and of itself sufficient to change outcomes, emphasizing it is not a winning tactic.
After months of looking rather weak and beatable, Hillary & the Clintonian media have kicked into gear.
But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s familiar with the Clintons’ uncanny ability to plow through an avalanche of scandals to magically appear in the White House.
This time will be no different.
Everyone in the pro-Clinton media know that she can pull this off if Republicans nominate the wrong candidate for the third time in a row.
Just like how everyone knew in 2011 that the awkward businessman who implemented Romneycare would disillusion millions of conservatives to stay home… while the guy who defeated Hillarycare and led the Republican Revolution would’ve obliterated Obama in another landslide, bigger than his ’94 earthshaker.
So the name of the game is to get Republicans to nominate Hillary’s most vulnerable prey who will be roasted in her inferno oven… the consequences of which will usher in a heII on earth.
I sure do wish that all the folks who tell me that we nominated the wrong candidate in 2008 and 2012 would take a moment and mention who the right candidate would have been.
I’d be happy to.
2008 would’ve been tough to win even if Abraham Lincoln was the nominee. The level of Bush-fatigue almost guaranteed a big change election.
But in 2012, we had a unique situation where the leader of the Republican Revolution was running to pull off the sequel to his ’94 blockbuster.
The media were fully aware that the geopolitical strategist who defeated Hillarycare and beat her hubby to push through Reagan’s policies with a national mandate… would’ve easily obliterated Obama in a Carter-sized landslide.
They remember when he led the GOP back to its first majority in 40 years in a historic landslide sweep of congress… and then reelected it for the first time since 1928. This represented a major tectonic shift in the political landscape from which the Democrats still haven’t fully recovered.
The last thing anyone in Washington wanted was to see a 2nd Republican Revolution and a 2nd Contract With America… which would’ve had deeper spending cuts and bigger reforms than what they faced in the ’90s.
That’s why the media jokingly touted Romney as “most electable”… while dismissing Mr Republican Revolution as “not viable”.
And they’re at it again by propelling the weaker GOP candidates and dismissing the stronger.
What, is Gingrich the GOP version of “he who must not be named”?
Look, I would have voted for him. His ’94 strategy of designing a platform of highly popular proposals and giving them a catchy name was one of those things where you think “why didn’t anyone think of that before”? And he did win the 2012 primaries in South Carolina and his home state of Georgia.
But that was pretty much it. 138 delegates at the convention. Despite a flood of money from Sheldon Adelson. If Newt couldn’t place in the top three candidates among his own base, even in a year where the field was weak, it is hard to believe your prediction that he would have wiped the floor with Obama. And remember, Newt did get thrown out as Speaker by his own party. I like the guy, but I think you are overestimating his popularity.