Don't Underestimate Hillary Clinton

Tom Brown just pointed me to another good Jennifer Rubin piece. As I've argued I think the Jennifer Rubins of the world-Republican women-are fertile ground for Hillary this time.

Now Ms. Rubin is arguing that people should not be underestimating Hillary Clinton.

"The media understandably are focusing on Hillary Clinton’s limitations as a candidate. She is having trouble putting away aging socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). She is not exciting young voters, and her untrustworthiness ratings are historically high. Republicans and other critics should not delude themselves into thinking she will be easy prey in the general election."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/24/dont-underestimate-hillary-clinton/
I have to quibble a little: how has she had trouble 'putting Bernie Sanders' away? This race has been over since March 15. After her landslide margin wins in NY and Pennsylvania in late April, it has not been possible to even harbor the illusion that this race is not over.

What does the Beltway think 'putting Bernie away' would look like? Because of the proportional Democratic system even someone who has lost can continue to function as a zombie campaign for a few months.

But she has not had trouble putting him away, she put him away over 2 months ago.

But that aside, Rubin is exactly right. We keep hearing that we shouldn't underestimate Donald Trump-but nobody is of course. It's actually Hillary who is being underestimated.

"For one thing, she will run against Donald Trump from the left. She won’t play defense from the right, as she has had to do in the primary while her party rejects the middle-of-the-road liberalism that her husband popularized as the “Third Way.” Her appearance at the Service Employees International Union convention in Detroit on Monday showed how effective she can be against Trump. She declared:

"At a time when families are struggling to pay for childcare and so much else, Donald Trump actually stood on a debate stage and argued that Americans are being paid too much. He actually talked, hear this because you need to tell your friends, he actually talked about getting rid of the national minimum wage altogether. . . . A lot of Republicans themselves say Donald Trump is a disaster waiting to happen to America. What little we know of his economic policies would be from running up our debt, to starting trade wars, to letting Wall Street run wild – all of that could cause another crash and devastate working families and our country. Trump economics is a recipe for lower wages, fewer jobs, more debt. He could bankrupt America like he’s bankrupted his companies."

Ask yourself, how could anybody lose money running a casino? Really?

She really is better — well, any politicians is better — against Trump. Against Trump, she can bond with the audience, something she isn’t always able to do with ease in the primary, by mocking Trump and regaling it with (accurate) tales of his loony policy pronouncements. Sure, this was a union audience, where she threw in plenty of goodies — from paid leave to subsidized child care (how we pay for all this is another matter) — but the message that Trump is a danger domestically and internationally is compelling. And it is one in which her deficits in the primary — staidness, lack of soaring rhetoric, etc. — become assets against the erratic, demagogic Trump.

"It’s child’s play, really. Her latest video ad highlights how Trump rooted for a crash"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/24/dont-underestimate-hillary-clinton/

Appreciate the corrective. This should be obvious but the media is full of absurd Hillary is doomed stories all day.

One other thing Rubin said I disagree with: that HRC doesn't excite anyone. Ok, the millennials during the primary were more into Bernie. But the rest of us were more into Hillary. If you don't believe Hillary doesn't excite anyone, you don't get out much.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-forgotten-hillary-clinton-supporters.html

P.S. Unlearning Econ tweeted me that he thinks it's unfair for Hillary not to debate Bernie.

While I liked UL as an economist who shed light on some of the illusions of Neoclassical econ, we disagree on political analysis.

" it helps to clarify candidate's positions and test them against each other. That's the purpose of a debate!"

https://twitter.com/UnlearningEcon/status/735186381907976192

As he's from the UK maybe he doesn't realize they've already debated ad nauseum. A debate serves that purpose before we choose a nominee. But we've chosen her.

Now debating helps no one but Trump: why else is Fox News the ones clamoring for a debate?