Republicans' Best Strategy
By all accounts, Hillary performed abominably at the latest Dem debate. I've heard a lot of Republicans are thrilled about the debacle.
But is it truly best for the Repubs?
Like them, each major Dem candidate has serious flaws. It's far from clear who'd be best to run against. So how does Hillary doing badly help?
Is it because she's the best candidate and they want her to fail? Is it she's still inevitable so anything that hurts her is good for use in the general election? Is it because they don't want a clear leader to sail into the convention?
It seems to me unless you know who's easiest to beat (and I sure don't), you can't really tell if Hillary's ups and down are good or bad.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:00 AM
1 Comments:
Therein lies the danger of attempting to be too strategic for your own good. By definition, whoever wins the nomination for either party will have survived a formidable process and will no doubt enjoy and suffer ups and downs. For Republicans to worry so much about Hillary's prospects seems to me to be in a major way missing the point. Sure she's non-starter with the base- but just how big is that base nowadays? The fact that she is beating all comers indicates some level of popularity and and may reflect shifts in the electorate. The republican strategists who want a Hillary victory are looking a lot like generals planning to fight the last war.
What republicans or for that matter democrats should really want in order to enjoy strategic advantage is for the other party to have a brutal battle and lots of divisiveness (think Reagan-Ford 76, Carter-Kennedy 80 and to a lesser extent Mondale Hart 84 and Bush Buchanan 88) resulting in internal bitterness and less rallying arounfd the heir presumptive.
Post a Comment
<< Home