Chuck Todd and his roundtable this morning seemed very skeptical. They were very skeptical of everything Hillary Clinton said in her interview with him this morning, though I actually think she did a good job.
She talked about the fact that we need to see his tax returns and that it remains to be seen what exactly Trump's accomplishments are.
But Todd felt that Hillary is on shaky ground in speaking of Trump as being too risky or dangerous. Right away Todd played clips of other candidates defining their opponents of being risky-Al Gore against W, George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton, etc.
The main takeaway seems to be that defining your opponent as dangerous is, well, dangerous. The problem with Todd's theory is that it totally cherrypicks elections. Sure, it doesn't always work but sometimes it does.
Richard Nixon certainly did it to great effect in 1972 and LBJ ran the classic fear campaign in 1964 against a candidate who was something of a proto Donald Trump. Goldwater also spoke of using nuclear weapons. The Hillary team ought to dust off LBJ's Daisy ad.
In truth, an election is a binary choice: A or B. It will always be a mix of people who vote positively or negatively. I'd say that there is usually some of both.
You will get those who vote for A, those who vote for B and then those who vote a little for A and a little against B.
Todd seemed to suggest that somehow simply vetting Trump or criticizing him shows Hilary's weakness as if there is this perfect election strategy where one talks only of oneself. Todd seems to think that Trump is offering 'change' and this puts Hillary in a very dangerous position of representing the Obama years.
Yes, most people say the country is on the wrong track. But the other side is that Obama's approval rating has actually gone positive this year after being upside down since 2013. Why is this? I'd say partly it's because he's a lame duck but I also think a big part of it is with the rise of Trump Americans are already realizing that maybe they should be grateful for what they have before it's gone.
Anyway, voters don't always choose change. In 2012 most Americans also said the country was going the wrong way, yet they vote for Obama. Obviously there is no necessary, structural advantage for change or then why are incumbents favored?
Besides all this, Hillary does have a very positive and attractive agenda for America. She wants to raise the minimum wage, has a plan to deal with the epidemic of student debt, she wants a public option for health care, a plan to expand Medicare for those over 55, for criminal justice reform, and to end voter suppression.
She wants to tackle immigration reform in the first 90s days. She has a comprehensive plan to raise wages in the gig or Uber economy.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html
Meanwhile Trump wants to ban Muslims, deport 11 million immigrants, cut Social Security, end Dodd-Frank and thinks wages are too high.
Could there be a clearer contrast?
She talked about the fact that we need to see his tax returns and that it remains to be seen what exactly Trump's accomplishments are.
But Todd felt that Hillary is on shaky ground in speaking of Trump as being too risky or dangerous. Right away Todd played clips of other candidates defining their opponents of being risky-Al Gore against W, George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton, etc.
The main takeaway seems to be that defining your opponent as dangerous is, well, dangerous. The problem with Todd's theory is that it totally cherrypicks elections. Sure, it doesn't always work but sometimes it does.
Richard Nixon certainly did it to great effect in 1972 and LBJ ran the classic fear campaign in 1964 against a candidate who was something of a proto Donald Trump. Goldwater also spoke of using nuclear weapons. The Hillary team ought to dust off LBJ's Daisy ad.
In truth, an election is a binary choice: A or B. It will always be a mix of people who vote positively or negatively. I'd say that there is usually some of both.
You will get those who vote for A, those who vote for B and then those who vote a little for A and a little against B.
Todd seemed to suggest that somehow simply vetting Trump or criticizing him shows Hilary's weakness as if there is this perfect election strategy where one talks only of oneself. Todd seems to think that Trump is offering 'change' and this puts Hillary in a very dangerous position of representing the Obama years.
Yes, most people say the country is on the wrong track. But the other side is that Obama's approval rating has actually gone positive this year after being upside down since 2013. Why is this? I'd say partly it's because he's a lame duck but I also think a big part of it is with the rise of Trump Americans are already realizing that maybe they should be grateful for what they have before it's gone.
Anyway, voters don't always choose change. In 2012 most Americans also said the country was going the wrong way, yet they vote for Obama. Obviously there is no necessary, structural advantage for change or then why are incumbents favored?
Besides all this, Hillary does have a very positive and attractive agenda for America. She wants to raise the minimum wage, has a plan to deal with the epidemic of student debt, she wants a public option for health care, a plan to expand Medicare for those over 55, for criminal justice reform, and to end voter suppression.
She wants to tackle immigration reform in the first 90s days. She has a comprehensive plan to raise wages in the gig or Uber economy.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html
Meanwhile Trump wants to ban Muslims, deport 11 million immigrants, cut Social Security, end Dodd-Frank and thinks wages are too high.
Could there be a clearer contrast?
No comments:
Post a Comment