Yesterday Ed Kilgore wrote a piece of the typical liberal 'advice' for Hillary that is supposedly meant to be helpful but is not really very helpful-and I suspect is not really meant to be.
He says Hillary has to run just a liberal campaign in the general as in the primary. Any shift to the Center will lead to more accusations of being inauthentic.
"HRC needs to remain steady on all areas of policy. Telegraphed strategic shifts will further erode "authenticity."
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/status/738144455585206272
"HRC's challenge is consolidating Ds & D-leaning indies, not exploiting GOP divisions that are rapidly disappearing."
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore
Here is his full piece.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/should-clinton-woo-responsible-republicans.html
"Clinton is pitching a 70-30 argument."
"Over the course of the past year, Clinton has been talking primarily to Democratic Party primary voters. This argument — and this speech in general — is not one that will be especially appealing to them."
"What she's offering instead is an argument aimed at a much broader audience. It's an argument that acknowledges, implicitly, that there are tens of millions of right-of-center Americans who've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate but didn't support Trump in the primary. Clinton is pitching an argument aimed at those people — one designed to offer little ideological or policy content in hopes of appealing to 70 percent of the population rather than 51 percent."
"It's essentially the argument that Business Insider's Josh Barro made early this week — Trump carries too much tail risk:
"It's clear he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. So we can't be certain which of these things he would do. But we can be certain that he's capable of doing any or all of them. Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge."
"In other words, ask yourself: What's the worst that could happen? Conservative-minded people aren't going to be thrilled with a Clinton presidency, but they've already lived through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama. The country is still standing. With Trump, by contrast, we really have no idea what we're going to get."
"Donald Trump's ideas, Clinton said, are "dangerously incoherent"; indeed, "they're not ideas at all." She calls him "temperamentally unfit" and raised the specter of nuclear war."
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11843550/hillary-clinton-trump-risk
I agree with Ygleisas, it's a winning argument.
This is an election where the Jennifer Rubins, Josh Barros, Mark Cubans of the world will be in play.
The idea that she has to play the same exact playbook as she did in the primary ignores the fact that there are lots of potential Hilary Republicans.
He says Hillary has to run just a liberal campaign in the general as in the primary. Any shift to the Center will lead to more accusations of being inauthentic.
"HRC needs to remain steady on all areas of policy. Telegraphed strategic shifts will further erode "authenticity."
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/status/738144455585206272
"HRC's challenge is consolidating Ds & D-leaning indies, not exploiting GOP divisions that are rapidly disappearing."
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore
Here is his full piece.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/should-clinton-woo-responsible-republicans.html
I disagree with him for a couple of reasons. One is I'm tired of liberals constantly second guessing Hillary. If you really want her to defeat Trump-assuming you do-then constant public criticism is not the answer.
All that does is contribute to the Beltway narrative that Hillary is weak, she has no basis to even run, doesn't know why she's running other than she just wants to be POTUS, and that 'even liberals are very critical of her.'
With friends like these.
That's sort of a tactical point. If you are trying to help your candidate win, constantly criticizing them publicly-whatever the criticism's quality-is not the best way to go about this.
On substance, I also think Kilgore's wrong. He seems to think that all Hillary needs to do to win is win over the Bernie Bros.
What he is missing is that a general electorate is much larger than a primary. Kilgore misses that most Bernie Sanders voters will vote for Hillary without too much trouble. Once she officially clinches next Tuesday and the party unites-Obama, Biden, Warren, etc, all endorse her-the party will unify.
All that does is contribute to the Beltway narrative that Hillary is weak, she has no basis to even run, doesn't know why she's running other than she just wants to be POTUS, and that 'even liberals are very critical of her.'
With friends like these.
That's sort of a tactical point. If you are trying to help your candidate win, constantly criticizing them publicly-whatever the criticism's quality-is not the best way to go about this.
On substance, I also think Kilgore's wrong. He seems to think that all Hillary needs to do to win is win over the Bernie Bros.
What he is missing is that a general electorate is much larger than a primary. Kilgore misses that most Bernie Sanders voters will vote for Hillary without too much trouble. Once she officially clinches next Tuesday and the party unites-Obama, Biden, Warren, etc, all endorse her-the party will unify.
There may be a small number of Berners who never vote for her, but she won't win those no matter what. They're a distinct minority.
I think Yglesias' analysis is spot on.
"Liberals aren't going to love this campaign strategy, but I think it will work."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/738452659917705216
I think Yglesias' analysis is spot on.
"Liberals aren't going to love this campaign strategy, but I think it will work."
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/738452659917705216
Yes, liberals like Kilgore. The very same liberals who gave us McGovern. Who think that if Bernie offers a $15 federal minimum wage and Hillary offers a $12 MW, and Trump says we need to cut wages, then Hillary and Trump are clearly both equally evil.
Basically Kilgore is hoping for a 51 percent strategy but Hillary is pitching a 70-30 strategy.
Basically Kilgore is hoping for a 51 percent strategy but Hillary is pitching a 70-30 strategy.
"Hillary Clinton rolled out the anti-Trump argument that could deliver a landslide"
"The essence of the argument is simple. You may not agree with everything she says or everything she's done or will do, but you can at least be sure that a Clinton presidency won't lead to some enormous unforeseen cataclysm. With Trump, there's no such guarantee."
"There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal," she said. "But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of 60 Minutes as Putin is not the same as actually dealing with Putin."
Bottom line: "The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels."
"The essence of the argument is simple. You may not agree with everything she says or everything she's done or will do, but you can at least be sure that a Clinton presidency won't lead to some enormous unforeseen cataclysm. With Trump, there's no such guarantee."
"There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal," she said. "But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of 60 Minutes as Putin is not the same as actually dealing with Putin."
Bottom line: "The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels."
"Clinton is pitching a 70-30 argument."
"Over the course of the past year, Clinton has been talking primarily to Democratic Party primary voters. This argument — and this speech in general — is not one that will be especially appealing to them."
"What she's offering instead is an argument aimed at a much broader audience. It's an argument that acknowledges, implicitly, that there are tens of millions of right-of-center Americans who've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate but didn't support Trump in the primary. Clinton is pitching an argument aimed at those people — one designed to offer little ideological or policy content in hopes of appealing to 70 percent of the population rather than 51 percent."
"It's essentially the argument that Business Insider's Josh Barro made early this week — Trump carries too much tail risk:
"It's clear he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. So we can't be certain which of these things he would do. But we can be certain that he's capable of doing any or all of them. Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge."
"In other words, ask yourself: What's the worst that could happen? Conservative-minded people aren't going to be thrilled with a Clinton presidency, but they've already lived through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama. The country is still standing. With Trump, by contrast, we really have no idea what we're going to get."
"Donald Trump's ideas, Clinton said, are "dangerously incoherent"; indeed, "they're not ideas at all." She calls him "temperamentally unfit" and raised the specter of nuclear war."
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11843550/hillary-clinton-trump-risk
I agree with Ygleisas, it's a winning argument.
This is an election where the Jennifer Rubins, Josh Barros, Mark Cubans of the world will be in play.
The idea that she has to play the same exact playbook as she did in the primary ignores the fact that there are lots of potential Hilary Republicans.
She won't be running on a different platform, just different framing.
Just like Reagan had his Reagan Democrats. Nobody accused him of being 'inauthentic', but then this word is used in a phony, 'inauthentic' gendered way.
Chris Cillizza also loved her speech.
"I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants." -- Hillary Clinton on Trump
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738451451899445258
That is a great line. Even Scott Sumner would like that one as much as he's not a Hillary fan.
More Cillizza:
"This is a forceful and well argued speech by Clinton. One of her better moments in the campaign."
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738453064798109696
Just like Reagan had his Reagan Democrats. Nobody accused him of being 'inauthentic', but then this word is used in a phony, 'inauthentic' gendered way.
Chris Cillizza also loved her speech.
"I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants." -- Hillary Clinton on Trump
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738451451899445258
That is a great line. Even Scott Sumner would like that one as much as he's not a Hillary fan.
More Cillizza:
"This is a forceful and well argued speech by Clinton. One of her better moments in the campaign."
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738453064798109696
No comments:
Post a Comment