Friday, June 5, 2015

A Strategy to Defeat the Republicans in 2016


It wasn't that long ago that the conventional wisdom among D.C. pundits (cough - Ron Fournier - cough) was that Hillary Clinton would need to distance herself from President Obama during the 2016 election. But since she actually launched her campaign, it's clear that she's not going to do that.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is running as the most liberal Democratic presidential front-runner in decades, with positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her party’s precarious left edge.

The moves are part of a strategic conclusion by Clinton’s emerging campaign: that it can harness the same kind of young and diverse coalition as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, bolstered by even stronger appeal among women.
In a previous post, I outlined the set of issues Clinton has addressed during these early stages of the campaign and noted that - so far - I'm impressed. Brian Beutler also took note and suggests that, rather than the triangulation Bill Clinton often employed, Hillary's "grand strategy" appears to be one of taking bold positions. But this statement by Beutler really caught my eye.
The nature of the strategy involves staking out a variety of progressive issue positions that enjoy broad support, but it’s not as straightforward as simply identifying the public sentiment and riding it to victory. The key is to embrace these ideas in ways that makes standard Republican counterspin completely unresponsive, and thus airs out the substantive core of their agenda: Rather than vie for conservative support by inching rightward, Clinton is instead reorienting liberal ideas in ways that make the Republican agenda come into greater focus.
That observation reminded me of a quote Ron Brownstein got from an Obama adviser back in December 2014.
One senior Obama adviser says the administration "To Do list" after 2012 included thinking "about how you lock in the Obama coalition for Democrats going forward. Because it's not a 100 percent certainty that they come out for the next Democrat." Part of the answer, the adviser said, was to pursue aggressive unilateral action on "a set of issues where we have an advantage … and believe are substantively the right thing to do" and dare Republicans to oppose him.
Hmmm...you don't suppose these two are working together on a strategy to defeat the Republicans in 2016, do you?

10 comments:

  1. My greatest fear going into this election cycle was that Clinton might actually buy into the conventional wisdom that she needed to distance herself from Obama. Nothing could be worse for her.

    I'm glad to see she's taking the smart route.

    That and her plans to compete in all 50 states (the Dean strategy) really gives me hope. And not just for her campaign but for the campaigns of all Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but for the campaigns of all Democrats

      BINGO!!!!

      Delete
    2. "My greatest fear going into this election cycle was that Clinton might actually buy into the conventional wisdom that she needed to distance herself from Obama. Nothing could be worse for her."


      She changes her stance every time the wind blows. She can't be trusted at all.

      Delete
  2. Let's just hope that other Democrats do something stupid and try to distance themselves from her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're too busy running away from Obama; the most successful President this generation will ever see. Morons.

      PBO had to EARN the nomination. So should she. I'm not convinced thus far.

      Delete
  3. "Hmmm...you don't suppose these two are working together on a strategy to defeat the Republicans in 2016, do you? "


    You're trying too hard Nancy. Tell that to Hillary & her followers whom are trying tooth & nail to bury PBO's legacy. Don't turn a blind eye to that.

    Either we have a democracy & get a primary challenge going, or 2016 will be a repeat of 2010 & 2014. Not joking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am willing to see Nancy's way...i am not going to be a naysayer...and become a PUMA in reverse...we have to win the 2016 election...without fail...we cannot afford to lose it...

    keeping my eyes and mind open...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While whitewashing the legacy of a Black leader & take minority base voters for granted?!

      "But, but, we have no choice"--I thought slavery ended long ago. The Pumas didn't care in 2010 & 2014. Why should WE [PBO supporters] care in 2016?

      Delete
    2. Yep, that's what I'm doing - keeping my eyes and mind open.

      Delete
  5. It's a matter of character, not coordination. President Obama has it. President Bill Clinton did not. Part of it is an understanding that it really, really isn't about you. Bill Clinton took Whitewater etc personally. Obama gets attacked personally in vile racist terms, and let's it roll of his shoulders. Because for him, it's about helping people.

    My fear is not about Hillary being "liberal enough". She's always had the politics of a good female Democrat, which means (in the bizarre ideological parlance of our times) that she is more liberal than the party generally.

    My fear is that she also took Whitewater personally, meaning she has the character of her husband and not that of our President.

    ReplyDelete