I see no reason to believe this is any more the case now than it was in past elections. Republicans have been saying that the “war on women” campaign is falling flat for quite a while, but they say a lot of things. It wasn’t Akin and Mourdock that sunk Romney – Akin and Mourdock sunk Akin and Mourdock.
If Clinton ran again, yeah, I think he’d win, but that’s because he has a record, and his record is not Obama’s record. If Clinton can successfully tie herself to Bill’s Presidency, then that’s a big help. There’s just two problems with that:
-
She can’t endorse a lot of her husband’s Presidency without pissing off the base. Republicans aren’t the only ones with base problems. Witness Hillary Clinton trying to oppose NAFTA during the 2008 primaries. When asked at a debate if Perot was right, she just gave a horselaugh in lieu of an actual answer. Welfare reform, smaller government, deregulation? If she wants to tie herself to the Clinton Presidency, she has to explain to a Democratic base why that’s good policy. Her husband used to go to union halls to fight for free trade. I’ve never seen her show a willingness or ability to do that.
-
Al Gore ran on “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet”, strongly implying he’d be Clinton’s third term only better. He won, sort of, but again, underperformed Clinton enough that it was pretty much a tie and we all know what happened. I just don’t see Clinton outperforming Al Gore, and Gore was running in a much more advantageous position.
In Colorado, it certainly has failed. Udall is tied with Gardner among female voters. Perhaps having a one issue campaign backfired?
http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/10/24/4196048/udalls-effort-to-woo-women-voters.html
In Kentucky, McConnell is even with Grimes among female voters:
This would only be a problem in the primary, and we’re talking about the general election. So this is not a problem… quite the contrary, for the general election.
I definitely see Clinton outperforming Gore. Hillary is not terribly charismatic, but compared to Gore she’s Elvis.
No, we saw these same sorts of “anomalies” in individual state elections in 2012. It doesn’t tell us much at all about the national mood, especially when there’s no national (presidential) candidate. The “war on women” will be fired up especially for the next presidential election, and considering that there’s been no significant change in national Republican policy regarding policies like equal pay, domestic violence, contraception, etc., I see no reason to believe it won’t be as effective then.
Gore has taken independent stances before. Clinton never does. Excessive caution is anti-charisma. I’m sure there are more voters who would support her just because she’s Hillary Clinton, but if you’re talking about inspiring people with your ideas, Al Gore has her beat hands down.
But yeah, she’ll probably do better than Al Gore’s dropoff because unlike Gore, there is a pretty large group of supporters, as with Obama, who like the idea of Hillary Clinton as President and don’t particularly care about the specifics. But she doesn’t have much margin for error. Gore’s dropoff from Clinton’s performance was steep. Obama didn’t win by enough in 2012 for Clinton to afford even half of Gore’s underperformance.
You do have a point though that she could capitalize on memories of the Clinton administration. That could work. I’m just not sure what Democrats are hoping to accomplish by that other than to win an election. The Clinton years weren’t exactly good years for progressives. At least if she runs as Obama’s third term and wins, she’s keeping the principles that motivated his Presidency alive. If she just resorts to Third Way Clintonism,t hen progressives didn’t win, they just didn’t lose as bad as if a Republican got elected.
Seriously? We want to ensure the ACA survives and is even improved. We don’t want to see a return to disastrous Republican economic policies.
They were better than they would have been under his opponents, though Bush I and Dole were not terribly objectionable, as far as Republicans go.
This is another misunderstanding of how liberals think.
So Clinton economic policies work for you? They work for me too. Agreement!
But I need to hear her endorse those policies. If she waffles or runs in opposition because that’s what the base demands, it tells me she isn’t committed to good economic policies.
They work for me far, far better than Republican policies. And for the most part, Clinton economic policies are Obama economic policies. There’s little to nothing Obama has done on the economy that Bill Clinton didn’t support. Policy-wise, though not stylistically, Obama has governed as a Clintonesque Democrat.
The difference is that Clinton governed with a Republican majority and took credit for the economic policy that resulted from their relationship. Obama governs with a Republican majority and complains about the very deals he agreed to. Which tells me he doesn’t agree with what’s been done. Although it hasn’t stopped him from claiming its because of him that the deficit is down. Couldn’t it be because the GOP cuts $200 billion off his budget requests?
That didn’t happen to Clinton because Clinton didn’t push big spending budgets on the GOP Congress.
Obama takes credit for the economic growth over his presidency – it just hasn’t been as big as the growth under Clinton.
This is a Hannityesque understanding of the president.
He didn’t have to – Clinton’s GOP congress was nutty, but not nearly as nutty as Obama’s GOP congress. Today’s GOP congress is not constitutionally capable of passing anything substantial that they believe Obama would sign.
No path to citizenship, no signature.
Ya think?
Why has the DREAM Act not been enacted yet, adaher? :dubious:
So fixing our border security must be held hostage to an unrelated issue? Yeah, that’ll go well for the Democrats.
OMG, Obama might not get re-elected! Same goes for repealing Obamacare while there is a guy named Obama in the White House.
That only works if Clinton condemns Obama for vetoing. Otherwise she owns it. Since border security is something that is supposed to be part of immigration reform, passing it costs Democrats nothing unless they want more illegal entries. If Democrats want the path to citizenship, all they have to do is win an election and actually prioritize the issue next time, instead of putting it on the backburner like they did the last time.
As for ACA, they don’t need to put a repeal bill on the President’s desk. They can make things much more uncomfortable for Hillary: put fixes on his desk that he can’t support because it undermines the law, but which are popular. Make Hillary answer whether she’d support the changes as President or not.
For example, but a repeal of the business mandate on his desk. Or even better, the individual mandate.
Obama will negotiate on border security, but the GOP has to give in on the path to citizenship. If they don’t, 2016 will be a wave election for the Democrats. No candidate can campaign on voting against it. Obama simply won’t sign border security instead of immigration reform.
There’s no negotiation on border security. It’s a basic duty of government. The ads write themselves. Democrats: opposed to law and order, opposed to protecting the American people. Unless we agree to amnesty the lawbreakers. That’s not a compromise, that’s hostage-taking.
I’m glad you don’t see the downside to ignoring the changing demographics. You will never see it coming.