It’s not the same, it’s eight years dumber.
What moderate Republican? All the Republican candidates were self-declared conservatives.
This is why the Democrats win Presidential elections. The Republicans run to the right and the Democrats run to the center. And the center is where the votes are.
Clinton understand this. When Sanders challenged her, she didn’t try to outflank him on the left. Instead, she held steady in the center. It made her campaign more difficult for her when she was still in the primaries. But her reward was that after the conventions she was much better positioned to claim independent votes.
Indeed. People like to think all sorts of weird and strange conspiracy theories with the Clintons. But Hillary Clinton cleared out the field not by bullying them or having the establishment ‘coronate’ her, but she did by building relationships with people for years and then a few years prior to the election sitting down with these people, talking with them, and asking for their support. And she got it. It was years of hard work and the mark of a good politician. The field was cleared because she did the work to clear it - to glad hand and get endorsements near and far. The ‘establishment’ didn’t have much to do with it; it was her strategy at work.
Despite his being a senator he in uniformly loathed by all of his colleagues and the party establishment. They prefer him to Trump but not by much. I think he counts as an outsider.
Hillary would have easily beaten Joe Biden. It’s super easy to say that.
Seriously though, Biden was polling behind both Sanders and Clinton when he officially stated that he was not running. The most likely scenario that can be inferred from the polls is that after third place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire he would have dropped out.
He also ran in 2008 against Clinton and Obama and dropped out by January 3. It seems pretty clear that the best candidates are always the ones we’re not looking at too closely. Once they come under scrutiny, all their foibles come into focus.
[Hypothetical situation]
“Our top story today, Joe Biden plagiarized yet another speech. Also, he made some ridiculous gaffe, and massaged someones shoulders.”
Democratic voters: Why, oh why is he the nominee? Hillary would have won in a walk based on her experience as SoS alone, leaving aside her many years of public service, experience in health care, toughness, and so on. Only Hillary could really have challenged the misogynistic Republican, he wouldn’t be able to get away with that if his challenger was a woman.
[/Hypothetical situation]
Disagree. Cruz is an outsider, because all of his Republican senate colleagues hate his guts, mostly because of his public dishonesty. Vox.com: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] For the past three years, he has been engaged in a very specific, pointed, and personal attempt aimed at painting practically every Republican in Washington as a corrupt phony and himself as the only honest man in the city. And his fellow Republicans don’t like this one bit. …
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] The article then details how proud Cruz was during the debt ceiling fight and how dishonest the characterization in his campaign book was: [INDENT][INDENT] …most incredibly of all, Cruz manages to narrate this entire story without *even once mentioning *an absolutely crucial piece of context about why his Senate colleagues might have been so reluctant to follow his lead. Namely, that this dramatic confrontation occurred just four months after the federal government shutdown of fall 2013 — a political disaster for the Republican Party that Cruz and the hard-line negotiating tactics he demanded had directly caused.
During that fight, of course, Cruz and his hard-line allies in the House refused to agree to any government funding bill that also funded Obamacare. This led to a 16-day shutdown of the federal government for which Republicans were widely blamed. Their poll numbers plummeted, and they soon wisely caved to avoid damaging their electoral prospects further.
In this context, Senate Republicans’ reluctance to follow Cruz’s advice makes a whole lot more sense. The very tactics he was arguing for had just been discredited in the most high-profile way possible. …
Yet Cruz deliberately chooses not to explain this to his readers. His one-sided account — aimed, of course, at Republican voters across the country who might support his presidential campaign — portrays the Republican Party as run by craven hacks eager to collaborate with President Obama to force more government spending on an unwilling people. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Want to know why so many Republicans hate Ted Cruz? Read his book. | Vox
If you are enough of an asshole and everyone around you hates your guts you are called a loner in high school and an outsider in politics.
That’s all a bunch of hypothetical BS. The only Republican consistently leading Hillary was Kasich. Go look at the polls for FL, for instance. Kasich was the only one up big on her there, everyone else was either tied or behind from the beginning. Same with OH too, by the way.
You forget Martin O’Malley. (That’s OK, everyone forgot Gov O’Malley)
Kasich was pretty moderate. He came in third, pretty much tied for 4th.
Yes, she is really hated by the folks who wouldn’t vote for* any* Dem.
Decades of Rove lies has done this. And of course, she’s a woman.
Mind you there are a few misteps, but nothing really serious.
No, never. No GOP candidate would. Of course, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t win- a small plurality in a few critical states could well mean a GOP President, like Bush/Gore.
But the current GOP cannot and will not ever win the popular vote. The last election they did so was with a Incumbent, the incompetent GWB, in 2004. He lost the popular vote in 2000.
Had Biden decided to run, we might have preferred him. Hillary isn’t “likeable” - she’s getting better. She is very qualified. Biden is charismatic.
But I suspect a decision was made between them - with some other people in the room (spouses, Obama) - to not split the ticket. But Biden was still floating the idea around as the GOP field was firming up - and I suspect that was the trial balloon for “what if the GOP pulls out someone who might win against Hillary.”
But as unlikeable as she is, they knew Kasich had no chance of winning - and Jeb has the charisma of a dead carp. Christie’s baggage makes Hillary look destined for sainthood, and Cruz makes Hillary look absolutely warm. There wasn’t anyone in the field she wouldn’t do well against - especially measuring against an electoral map.
I understand the sentiment that Hillary would be vulnerable from a moderate Republican, but where’s the support coming from? Hillary is crushing it among African-Americans who are largely gatekeepers to the Democratic nomination and a very reliable voting block. She’s doing OK with Hispanics and women. Even if you make the argument she’d struggle with whites, Obama lost whites by 12 points and still won by almost 200 EVs 8 years ago. Add in the fact a Republican has won the presidential popular vote share only ONCE since 1988 while largely losing the demographic game ever since. And…any Republican candidate that COULD conceivably seize the middle would be forced into positions that would diminish the support on their right flank.
Even if Republicans would have played their cards flawlessly, I don’t see how Hillary is any worse than maybe a very slight underdog.
Biden has negatives though. He’s not as smart as Hillary, by far, though he also works hard. Biden suffers from foot in mouth syndrome. I’m not convinced that he’s necessarily a stronger Presidential candidate than HRClinton. See RitterSport’s post. He is certainly a better orator. That said, I agree that the last speech I saw by Hillary was more polished than those I’ve seen in the past.
Luckily she does better at press conferences than speeches. Frankly, she’s my first choice among Democrats in 2016, though in 2008 I preferred Obama.
Also a point of fact to consider is that Kasich was the only actual remotely ‘moderate’ republican running. The others were backing extremist budget-cutting koch policies, national right-to-work laws,etc. policies that were not remotely attractive to bernie supporters.
Maybe, if there was such a thing.
Yes, I am denying any implied assertion that Kasich is a moderate.
Compared to the other GOP candidates, he was the moderate.
This article does a good job of explaining the question in the thread title:
The upshot:
Politics is based on quid pro quo. And compromise. Give and take. Communication. Reaching across the aisle. Remove those things and it all breaks down. As a result of this breakdown, the Republican party has no center of gravity and no leadership. There was no one in charge, no one minding the store capable of shutting Trump down.
In order that such a comparison be able to meaningfully assign “moderate” status to Kasich, one must first accept that the Overton window has either shifted so far to the right that the most conservative Democrat is indistinguishable from Joe Stalin, or that it has become so wide as to render the window itself useless.
I deny both of these possibilities in favor of the conclusion that the Republican Party itself has shifted so far to the right that it no longer intersects with the Overton window at all.
How quickly a bad primary season changes the tune.
Prior to the primaries beginning, conservative pundits and Republican leaders like Rince Preibus were going on about the “deep bench” that the Republicans had, compared to the lack-lustre Democratic candidates.
Now that same “deep bench” is being derided by pundits, as weak and uninspiring, with the sub-text that maybe if the Republicans had put in their A-team they would have been spared the embarrassment of Donald Trump as their candidate.
So where is that Republican A-team? where are they hiding, and why?