Tom Brown has turned me onto her as in this crazy election year, I have all kinds of new friends. I wasn't a fan of Rubin during the primary-as she rightly didn't want Trump to be her party's nominee while I emphatically did-but I have appreciated that she is still #NeverTrump now that the primary is over.
It shows she does have some principles.
She's done some pretty good work lately, and provides a window into the sort of GOP women who Hillary might be able to win over.
To be sure, for a regular Republican voter to simply refuse to vote for the Republican nominee is already kind of a vote for Hillary.
However, I notice that the last week Rubin seems to be slipping into fantasy about Trump being denied the nomination and say Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio coming in for the rescue.
I think at this late stage this will be difficult to do-though it surely is being attempted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/2016/06/17/e8dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
But where I really think Rubin is getting off the rails is her stated belief that if only the GOP could get anyone other than Trump that they can still easily beat Hillary Clinton.
Here's what she said in her open letter to Paul Ryan yesterday:
"You say you fear a chasm will knock the Republicans out of the White House. Honestly, given the past few weeks and the polling (which surely will get worse for Trump), do you imagine there is a significant chance Trump would win the White House? Surely the certain way to “knock [Republicans] out of the White House” is to stick with the only candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton. The only way to preserve Republicans’ hopes is for the convention to find an acceptable, fit nominee."
"At a more fundamental level, it has become increasingly impossible to argue that Trump is “better” than Clinton. Both are a nightmare, wouldn’t you say? The idea that Congress can guide, cajole and check Trump was a nice fiction that has been shown to be entirely unrealistic. He has not adopted policy positions or the values of the party; to the contrary, he is determined to ignore sage advice and defy principles of limited government. Practically every day you are forced to repudiate a position or viewpoint he espouses. Once he is president, do you think he would be more inclined to pay attention to you?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/17/an-open-letter-to-paul-ryan/
She has admitted that Trump is worse than Hillary-that he is a threat to the very fabric of the country-in other posts. Here she seems to be playing false equivalence-maybe because she's trying to appeal to Ryan?
But the real bill of goods she has swallowed is that Hillary is a flawed candidate who anyone else but Donald Trump could easily beat.
The idea that Hillary is a 'flawed candidate' is actually the creation of the GOP in the few years since she left State.
It's actually an anxiety formation they came up with. When she was leaving State in late 2012, there was real trepidation on the GOP side that she would be a very formidable opponent. Remember, her mediocre favorability numbers were actually very strong while she was still SOS-she was at 64 percent.
Even a majority of Republicans had a positive view of her-back then it was President Obama who had the mediocre approval rating.
The GOP certainly has been successful pushing this meme that she's a flawed candidate. The media has largely accepted it and the Berners have also run with it.
But the question that begs is if she's so flawed as a candidate, why has she been so successful? She won her two races for NY Senate handily and she narrowly lost to Obama in 2008 who most agree is a once in a generation political talent, while holding onto the popular vote.
Yes, she was the favorite early that year, but this changed after Iowa. If she had lost NH as all the recent polls suggested she would-she was down by about 9 points in the averages-she quite possibly would have been out quickly. So that she was able to keep it going and end up so close and winning the popular vote was impressive.
Now this year versus Bernie, she won a very strong mandate. She won by almost 400 pledged delegates, almost 4 million votes-actually I was informed on Twitter that with the votes being counted in Cali it's not up to 5 million-and she won with a larger percentage of the Dem primary vote than did President Carter in 1980, much more than Mondale in 1984-now he was a weak candidate as he won just 38 percent of the primary vote-much more than Dukakis in 1988-he only won 42 percent-and even more than her husband in 1992: he won 53 percent, she's over 55 percent.
Indeed, even Ezra Klein whose been quite negative about her, finally has conceded:
It shows she does have some principles.
She's done some pretty good work lately, and provides a window into the sort of GOP women who Hillary might be able to win over.
To be sure, for a regular Republican voter to simply refuse to vote for the Republican nominee is already kind of a vote for Hillary.
However, I notice that the last week Rubin seems to be slipping into fantasy about Trump being denied the nomination and say Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio coming in for the rescue.
I think at this late stage this will be difficult to do-though it surely is being attempted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dozens-of-gop-delegates-launch-new-push-to-halt-donald-trump/2016/06/17/e8dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
But where I really think Rubin is getting off the rails is her stated belief that if only the GOP could get anyone other than Trump that they can still easily beat Hillary Clinton.
Here's what she said in her open letter to Paul Ryan yesterday:
"You say you fear a chasm will knock the Republicans out of the White House. Honestly, given the past few weeks and the polling (which surely will get worse for Trump), do you imagine there is a significant chance Trump would win the White House? Surely the certain way to “knock [Republicans] out of the White House” is to stick with the only candidate who could lose to Hillary Clinton. The only way to preserve Republicans’ hopes is for the convention to find an acceptable, fit nominee."
"At a more fundamental level, it has become increasingly impossible to argue that Trump is “better” than Clinton. Both are a nightmare, wouldn’t you say? The idea that Congress can guide, cajole and check Trump was a nice fiction that has been shown to be entirely unrealistic. He has not adopted policy positions or the values of the party; to the contrary, he is determined to ignore sage advice and defy principles of limited government. Practically every day you are forced to repudiate a position or viewpoint he espouses. Once he is president, do you think he would be more inclined to pay attention to you?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/17/an-open-letter-to-paul-ryan/
She has admitted that Trump is worse than Hillary-that he is a threat to the very fabric of the country-in other posts. Here she seems to be playing false equivalence-maybe because she's trying to appeal to Ryan?
But the real bill of goods she has swallowed is that Hillary is a flawed candidate who anyone else but Donald Trump could easily beat.
The idea that Hillary is a 'flawed candidate' is actually the creation of the GOP in the few years since she left State.
It's actually an anxiety formation they came up with. When she was leaving State in late 2012, there was real trepidation on the GOP side that she would be a very formidable opponent. Remember, her mediocre favorability numbers were actually very strong while she was still SOS-she was at 64 percent.
Even a majority of Republicans had a positive view of her-back then it was President Obama who had the mediocre approval rating.
The GOP certainly has been successful pushing this meme that she's a flawed candidate. The media has largely accepted it and the Berners have also run with it.
But the question that begs is if she's so flawed as a candidate, why has she been so successful? She won her two races for NY Senate handily and she narrowly lost to Obama in 2008 who most agree is a once in a generation political talent, while holding onto the popular vote.
Yes, she was the favorite early that year, but this changed after Iowa. If she had lost NH as all the recent polls suggested she would-she was down by about 9 points in the averages-she quite possibly would have been out quickly. So that she was able to keep it going and end up so close and winning the popular vote was impressive.
Now this year versus Bernie, she won a very strong mandate. She won by almost 400 pledged delegates, almost 4 million votes-actually I was informed on Twitter that with the votes being counted in Cali it's not up to 5 million-and she won with a larger percentage of the Dem primary vote than did President Carter in 1980, much more than Mondale in 1984-now he was a weak candidate as he won just 38 percent of the primary vote-much more than Dukakis in 1988-he only won 42 percent-and even more than her husband in 1992: he won 53 percent, she's over 55 percent.
Indeed, even Ezra Klein whose been quite negative about her, finally has conceded:
"It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician."
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination
As for Ms. Rubin, she in many ways has been very forthright and realistic about the failings of her own party, but she seems to be losing sight of them now.
Yes, she's correct that Donald Trump is a joke, but her party nominated him. Clearly, then, they are an even bigger joke.
Is Hillary a flawed candidate? Compared to who? Who are these flawless candidates who the folks who raz Hillary have in mind that have no flaws?
Surely, it's no one who ran in the Republican primary.
Rubin somehow has convinced herself that while none of her Republicans came close to taking down Donald Trump in the primary, and Hillary has proven very skilled at taking him down in the general, nevertheless, if one of them could somehow usurp the will of the GOP primary voters, they could beat Hilary with relative ease.
But look at the candidates who Trump beat. Rubin is suggesting that anyone of them could beat Hillary. Really?
Could Ted Cruz have done so? Very doubtful. He was such a flawed candidate that the GOPers couldn't even agree amongst themselves that he was preferable to Trump.
Could Jeb Bush have done so? Can Rubin honestly claim that Jeb has no flaws? His baggage makes Hillary's feel like an overnight bag.
No way would Jeb ever have got past his last name.
Chris Christie? Sure, he could have done it, and I'd like to sell you the George Washington Bridge while we're at it.
Ben Carson? Sure, the "I did so almost stab my mother' candidate.
Ok, so it's not quite true that anyone but Trump could beat Hillary.
How about Marco Rubio? Sure, he has no flaws. It's not like anyone calls him a robot. Oh wait.
Let us dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio is a flawless candidate...
Ok. Having said all that, there's no question that I wanted Trump all along as Hillary's opponent.
Why if I think she could beat these other guys?
Because with Trump, she can just take the layup every time as he always gives that to her.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-your-opponent-is-going-to-punch.html
She can play basketball, but against Trump she can just take the layup every time. With Rubio, she'd have to play more actual basketball though I believe she could win.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination
As for Ms. Rubin, she in many ways has been very forthright and realistic about the failings of her own party, but she seems to be losing sight of them now.
Yes, she's correct that Donald Trump is a joke, but her party nominated him. Clearly, then, they are an even bigger joke.
Is Hillary a flawed candidate? Compared to who? Who are these flawless candidates who the folks who raz Hillary have in mind that have no flaws?
Surely, it's no one who ran in the Republican primary.
Rubin somehow has convinced herself that while none of her Republicans came close to taking down Donald Trump in the primary, and Hillary has proven very skilled at taking him down in the general, nevertheless, if one of them could somehow usurp the will of the GOP primary voters, they could beat Hilary with relative ease.
But look at the candidates who Trump beat. Rubin is suggesting that anyone of them could beat Hillary. Really?
Could Ted Cruz have done so? Very doubtful. He was such a flawed candidate that the GOPers couldn't even agree amongst themselves that he was preferable to Trump.
Could Jeb Bush have done so? Can Rubin honestly claim that Jeb has no flaws? His baggage makes Hillary's feel like an overnight bag.
No way would Jeb ever have got past his last name.
Chris Christie? Sure, he could have done it, and I'd like to sell you the George Washington Bridge while we're at it.
Ben Carson? Sure, the "I did so almost stab my mother' candidate.
Ok, so it's not quite true that anyone but Trump could beat Hillary.
How about Marco Rubio? Sure, he has no flaws. It's not like anyone calls him a robot. Oh wait.
Let us dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio is a flawless candidate...
Ok. Having said all that, there's no question that I wanted Trump all along as Hillary's opponent.
Why if I think she could beat these other guys?
Because with Trump, she can just take the layup every time as he always gives that to her.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-your-opponent-is-going-to-punch.html
She can play basketball, but against Trump she can just take the layup every time. With Rubio, she'd have to play more actual basketball though I believe she could win.
It's hard to be too intimidated by a robot who lost his own home state to Donald Trump by almost 20 points.
But Rubin needs to face facts. It's not that Hillary is a flawed candidate, it's that Rubin's party is a flawed party.
But Rubin needs to face facts. It's not that Hillary is a flawed candidate, it's that Rubin's party is a flawed party.
Good points Mike. Looks like Rubio is going to run for Senate, so I suppose that means he's out of the running in the imaginations of would be GOP mutineers against Trump.
ReplyDelete