Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion

Well, now it’s pretty much official who HRC is going to be running against, it’s time for the official campaign threads.

(And, yes, Bernie says it isn’t over. But it’s over.)

What thoughts do you have about how she should run the campaign? Since Trump has consistently said he will hit her hard in re: to scandals, how do you think HRC should respond*? Why is she going to win? Why is she going to lose?

Just so we’re in the clear, the OP is an HRC supporter.

*This was actually a question on the DNC survey I received last week.

Trump also said he had definitive proof that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery. I’m guessing these “scandals” he’s going to “hit her hard” on are basically just him repeating the words “emails” and “Benghazi” ad nauseum without any added substance.

I have always been convinced that the person most likely to defeat Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton. While Obama ran an excellent campaign in 2008 it was Clinton’s own gaffes (tactical and verbal) that scuppered her campaign. If she wants a clear path to the White House, she needs to tread carefully until November.

The best way to deal with Trump is to engage with him as little as possible; what he craves is publicity, and the less regard she gives him the more it will infuriate him. And a furious Trump is one more likely to make gaffes of his own.

I suspect that Hillary’s team has been doing hardcore opposition research into everything Trump has said or done over the last 30 years. That will include interviews with folks like Howard Stern and much more. Further, she will have (probably) dug up any significant personal scandals in Trump’s past.

Between now and the convention, I suspect she and her team will be coming up with a way to organize all this stuff (of which there will probably be an enormous amount) to use after the conventions. Once Trump is definitively crowned the nominee, Hillary’s campaign will set up a steady flow – perhaps one ‘story’ per week or so of something racist/sexist/ridiculous/horrible that Trump said in the past that will be leaked to various media outlets, and hammered home with attack ads (from her campaign and allied SuperPACs) and attacks from campaign surrogates and allies. She’ll add onto that any major bombshell stories (like a rape allegation, spousal abuse, serious financial crime, ties to prominent racists, etc.) that her team has found, at strategic moments, especially the last two or three months of the general election.

There should be enough material to keep Trump permanently on the defensive, and enough material that is offensive to almost every demographic, to make him entirely unacceptable to well over 50% of the voters in most states.

And Hillary will do well to have surrogates, attack ads, and SuperPACs make the dirtiest and harshest allegations – she should not make the mistake that Rubio and Cruz did of personally stepping into the gutter with Trump – rather, her campaign and allies, but not her personally, should make the harshest and most personal attacks.

Basically, attack attack attack, relentlessly, without mercy, and consistently and steadily, for the entire campaign season.

I just read an article on blue states, red states and the battleground states for the November election. I really find it hard to believe that so many people are simply voting in this way, oblivious to what they might be putting in the White House next year. Are American’s politically blind now?

iiandyii’s approach makes sense to me. It’s a mixed blessing for Hillary to have been on the national political scene for a generation now, but one advantage, at least, is that she’s so well-known and has been attacked so often for so long, there’s not really a new course of attack for Trump to undertake - not a plausible one, at least (but when has that ever stopped him?).

I don’t have a cite because I read it months ago but Clinton’s team reportedly started collecting opposition research on Trump the day he announced last June. In comparison, most of the Republican contenders didn’t start collecting until Jan-Feb, being too busy preparing for each other and trusting that Trump would flare out before Iowa. I’m guessing the Clinton opposition file on Trump makes those of Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc look like pamphlets.

No, he’ll hit her with every scandal. Remember, this is the guy who literally just accused his rival’s father of assassinating JFK.

So, yeah. Iran-Contra? Watergate? Teapot Dome? All totally Hillary scandals.

I don’t know what the article says, so I don’t know what “voting in this way” means in reference to the article. Link?

If this is the way to go, the only change I would make to this is to start now, not waiting until after the convention. Trump isn’t going to wait, why should Hillary?

She could start now with some minor stuff, but if she has big bombshells to use, she wants to save them for later, and more importantly if she has those bombshells, she doesn’t want to derail Trump’s nomination. What’s said between now and the convention doesn’t really matter that much, unless it’s big enough to sink a candidacy before the convention (in which case it should certainly be saved for the general election). And if it’s not that big, then it will be dealt with and mostly forgotten by the election.

There is a lot of blindness yes, but most articles do talk about hypothetical generic Republican candidates or past ones. They have yet not plugged in how Trump is doing now.

At this moment I’m aware of recent polls that show Clinton ahead by double digits in Florida, and articles pointing out that Trump is really toast then in many scenarios. And then there are the moderate Republicans or more moralist ones that are making a difference in states like Utah where a recent poll showed Clinton ahead of Trump and Clinton tied with him in another red state: Arizona.

It’s quite shocking just how many Republicans have said they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton, the day after Cruz dropped out of the race. Having RedState contributers and former John McCain strategists tweet #ImWithHer is astonishing. So I think that Trump’s obnoxiousness in scandal mongering may create more defections. In that case, Clinton herself may choose to play it Presidential and avoid going into the muck, while having her campaign send out things about what Trump has said. But I think the key is that it should be her campaign ‘leaking’ this stuff, but not the candidate directly dropping these bombs.

Because despite this being a nice companion thread, she really is in a different situation than Trump. She is going to be the nominee but she is still facing a very loudmouth and active primary opponent.

Personally, I don’t think Trump is just going to keep hammering on the same old scandals, at least he shouldn’t. Free trade issues is a good lever for him so he can hammer at her flip flopping on TPP and the Columbian trade deal. He should highlight every suspicious international donor to the Clinton fund. Another lever is foreign military involvement. There’s plenty of grist for the mill in Clinton’s hawkishness or at least her believing America is the world’s police. He could also seek to downplay how different they are on border security i.e. they both want a secure southern border but Clinton just doesn’t want as big a wall. I think if Trump is innovative like this and just let’s people remember the old scandals on their own, he might give her a scare.

look at the bottom half of the article.

If I were running HRC’s campaign I’d act like we were running unopposed. Completely ignore Trump for as long as possible because engaging him leads nowhere. Of course she’ll have to do debates, but even in those, focus only on her plan and her vision. As the Republican field can attest, even when you’re attacking Trump, you’re still constantly playing defense. It’s futile. And anyway, absent some giant controversy, I think she wins in a landslide.

I think this is absolutely the wrong strategy – it was basically Kasich’s (and Dukakis’s, of course). Attacks must be responded to, and Trump will attack. Hillary’s campaign should attack with everything they’ve got, and keep Trump on the defensive as much as possible.

If you’re just talking about Hillary personally, then yes – Hillary should talk about the issues, but her campaign, allies, and surrogates should relentlessly attack Trump with incredible vigor and no mercy.

At the Presidential level, I’m pretty sure that the winner over the last several decades has always used negative attacks. That’s because they work.

Indeed. And if she can encourage a respected moderate Republican or two to hammer Trump, she could grab that chance as well.

I recall in 2008 McCain’s negative attacks badly backfired. Obama focused on change (and being the most non-Bush) and won easily.

I think Hillary an similarly watch Trump flail away while she stays out of the mud. And yes, I’m talking about her, personally. Of course if other politicians from either side want to fling it at Trump, hell yes that’s welcome.

With the economy in apparent free-fall after 8 years of his party’s control of the WH, McCain had as much chance of the Presidency in 2008 as Kasich does now.

I would also work on demoralizing the other side as well. Couldn’t somebody who has filtered their money through 5 organizations anonymously produce and release a “Vote for Donald Trump: He’s pro choice” commercial, complete with multiple pro-choice quotes from the Donald himself spread, er, liberally over the ad? Or a “Donald Trump: He supports Obamacare.”, with like quotes?

Lastly, don’t run away from the Obama legacy and try to have him at your side.